ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

transportSetOwner

Assign ownership of an ABAP transport to a specific user to manage development workflow and responsibility in SAP systems.

Instructions

Sets the owner of a transport.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "transportNumber": "<transportNumber>",
      "targetuser": "<targetuser>"
    },
    "name": "transportSetOwner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transportNumber`	Yes	The transport number.
`targetuser`	Yes	The target user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether the previous owner is overwritten), required permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that earns its place without any waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and object, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context such as the meaning of 'owner' in this domain, potential side effects, or relationship to sibling tools. The absence of annotations makes this a clear gap for a tool that mutates state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('The target user' and 'The transport number'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Sets the owner of a transport' uses a specific verb (sets) and resource (owner of a transport), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like transportAddUser (which adds a user) and transportRelease. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transportAddUser or transportRelease. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server