Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CreateFunctionGroup

Create a new ABAP function group in an SAP system. Function groups serve as containers for function modules.

Instructions

Create a new ABAP function group in SAP system. Function groups serve as containers for function modules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNoHow 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
activateNoActivate function group after creation. Default: true. Set to false for batch operations.
descriptionNoFunction group description. If not provided, function_group_name will be used.
package_nameYesPackage name
master_languageNoOptional master/original language for the created object (e.g. "EN", "DE", "ZH"). Defaults to the session language (SAP_LANGUAGE) or EN.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Required for transportable packages.
function_group_nameYesFunction group name. Up to 26 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • 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 / function_group_name / description
      Previous value: -"Function group name (e.g., ZTEST_FG_001). Must follow SAP naming conventions (start with Z or Y, max 26 chars)."New value: +"Function group name. Up to 26 characters."
    • 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 (e.g., E19K905635). Required for transportable packages."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable packages."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv8.1.0
    • 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"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not say that creation requires a transport request for transportable packages, what activation does or that it defaults to true, whether the operation fails on an existing name, or what permissions are needed. The second sentence is domain education, not behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is arguably optional context but is cheap and aids the agent's understanding of the object type.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits transport semantics, activation consequences, and collision behavior. The rich, fully documented schema compensates for the parameter gaps, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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 all seven parameters (including transport_request, activate, master_language, and detail) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Create a new ABAP function group in SAP system") and adds a one-line domain gloss about what a function group is. Sibling tools like CreateFunctionModule, UpdateFunctionGroup, and DeleteFunctionGroup make the operation unambiguous by name, but the description itself does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (package must exist, transport requirements), and no routing to alternatives such as UpdateFunctionGroup or CheckFunctionGroup. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name and schema.

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