Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CreateServiceDefinition

Create a service definition that exposes CDS views as an OData service, in initial state.

Instructions

Create a service definition that exposes CDS views as an OData service, in initial state.

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 service definition after creation. Default: true.
descriptionNoService definition description. If not provided, service_definition_name will be used.
source_codeNoService definition source code (optional). If not provided, a minimal template will be created.
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.
service_definition_nameYesService definition name.

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 / package_name / description
      Previous value: -"Package name (e.g., ZOK_LOCAL, $TMP for local objects)"New value: +"Package name"
    • changedInput schema / properties / service_definition_name / description
      Previous value: -"Service definition name (e.g., ZSD_MY_SERVICE). Must follow SAP naming conventions (start with Z or Y)."New value: +"Service definition 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 for a mutation tool. It says 'in initial state' but never clarifies what that means relative to the schema's activate=true default, nor whether a transport request is mandatory in practice, what permissions are required, or what happens on name collision.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping phrase 'in initial state' is placed where it is most useful. It is efficient, though it could spend one more clause on behavior instead of being quite so terse.

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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain the activation/transport implications or what is returned. The rich 100%-covered schema compensates on parameters, but the behavioral gap keeps this at minimum-viable.

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%, including defaults for detail, activate, description, source_code and master_language, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create a service definition") plus scope detail ("exposes CDS views as an OData service, in initial state"). This clearly separates it from Get/Update/DeleteServiceDefinition and CreateServiceBinding, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The Agent must infer that this is the creation counterpart to the sibling read/update/delete tools, and nothing explains when a service definition is needed versus e.g. CreateServiceBinding.

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