mcp-abap-adt

CreateDdl

Creates a CDS or classic DDL view source object in a specified package, returning it in initial state so you can write the DDL source code afterwards.

Instructions

Creates the CDS view or classic DDL view named by ddl_name in the package named by package_name, in initial state: the DDL source object, its DDL source code written afterwards. Recordable: in batch mode a call is recorded under the next number and answers with empty content; its answer is read by number after the batch ends.

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": {
      "ddl_name": "<ddl_name>",
      "package_name": "<package_name>"
    },
    "name": "CreateDdl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	How much of the answer to return: "terse" (default, the fields you need to act), "full" (the whole parse), "raw" (the document as ADT sent it).	terse
`ddl_name`	Yes	DDL source name.
`description`	No	Optional description (defaults to ddl_name).
`package_name`	Yes	Package name
`master_language`	No	Optional master/original language for the created object (e.g. "EN", "DE", "ZH"). Defaults to the session language (SAP_LANGUAGE) or EN.
`transport_request`	No	Transport request number (required for transportable packages), not a task.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ddl_name / description

Previous value: -"DDL source name (e.g., ZOK_R_TEST_0002, Z_I_MY_VIEW)."New value: +"DDL source name."

addedInput schema / properties / detail

Added value: +{
+  "default": "terse",
+  "description": "How much of the answer to return: \"terse\" (default, the fields you need to act), \"full\" (the whole parse), \"raw\" (the document as ADT sent it).",
+  "enum": [
+    "terse",
+    "full",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / package_name / description

Previous value: -"Package name (e.g., ZOK_LAB, $TMP for local objects)"New value: +"Package name"

changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description

Previous value: -"Transport request number (required for transportable packages)."New value: +"Transport request number (required for transportable packages), not a task."

Changed1 schema field changedv8.1.0Jun 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / master_language

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional master/original language for the created object (e.g. \"EN\", \"DE\", \"ZH\"). Defaults to the session language (SAP_LANGUAGE) or EN.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv8.0.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses that the object lands in initial (unactivated) state, that source code is written afterwards, and the non-obvious batch semantics (empty answer recorded under the next batch number, read afterwards by number). It omits error/rollback behavior and any hint that transport_request may be required for transportable packages.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every clause carries operational information (initial state, source written after, batch recording and retrieval). Nothing is redundant padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 6-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies creation state, ordering of source write, and batch return semantics. It is nearly complete; the remaining gaps are activation follow-up and transport/auth preconditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description only restates that ddl_name and package_name name the object and package, adding no meaning beyond the schema for those or for detail, master_language, description and transport_request.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Creates) and resource (CDS view or classic DDL view), and ties both required parameters to the action, so it is clearly distinct from UpdateDdl/DeleteDdl/ActivateDdl siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'Creates ... in initial state' tells the agent this is for bringing a new DDL object into existence rather than modifying one, and the closing clause explains batch-mode use. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to ActivateDdl/UpdateDdl for follow-up steps.

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

Deploy Server