Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CreateCdsUnitTest

Create a CDS unit test class to validate a CDS view with test doubles. The class is generated in an initial state.

Instructions

Create a CDS unit test class with CDS validation. Creates the test class in initial state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
class_nameYesGlobal test class name (e.g., ZCL_CDS_TEST).
descriptionNoOptional description for the global test class.
package_nameYesPackage name (e.g., ZOK_TEST_PKG_01, $TMP).
cds_view_nameYesCDS view name to validate for unit test doubles.
transport_requestNoTransport request number (required for transportable packages).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / class_template
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ABAP class template used for CDS unit tests.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / test_class_source
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Local test class ABAP source code.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "class_name",
-  "package_name",
-  "cds_view_name",
-  "class_template",
-  "test_class_source"
-]New value: +[
+  "class_name",
+  "package_name",
+  "cds_view_name"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description only says 'Creates the test class in initial state' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or post-creation behavior. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, with no wasted words. Appropriate for a simple creation tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits details like return value, prerequisites, and what 'initial state' entails.

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%, so the schema already fully describes parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states it creates a CDS unit test class with CDS validation, distinguishing it from general unit test creation (CreateUnitTest) and general class creation (CreateClass).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateUnitTest or CreateClass, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools