Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CreateUnitTest

Create and activate ABAP Unit tests for an existing class by writing local test class definitions and implementations.

Instructions

Create ABAP Unit tests for a class: write its local test classes and activate the class.

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
class_nameYesClass that holds the tests. Must already exist.
test_class_sourceYesABAP source of the local test classes: definitions and implementations, FOR TESTING. Replaces what the include holds.
transport_requestNoTransport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / class_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Class that holds the tests. Must already exist.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / context
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional context string shown in SAP tools.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • 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"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / duration
      Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "long": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "medium": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "short": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / risk_level
      Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "critical": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "dangerous": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "harmless": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / scope
      Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "add_foreign_tests_as_preview": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "foreign_tests": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "own_tests": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / test_class_source
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ABAP source of the local test classes: definitions and implementations, FOR TESTING. Replaces what the include holds.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / tests
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "List of container/test class pairs to execute.",
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "container_class": {
-        "description": "Class that owns the test include (e.g., ZCL_MAIN_CLASS).",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "test_class": {
-        "description": "Test class name inside the include (e.g., LTCL_MAIN_CLASS).",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "container_class",
-      "test_class"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / title
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional title for the ABAP Unit run.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / transport_request
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Transport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tests"
-]New value: +[
+  "class_name",
+  "test_class_source"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: the class is activated as part of the call. However, it does not state whether existing test classes are overwritten (that detail lives only in the schema), whether the write is reversible, or what permissions/transport requirements apply.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that also conveys the two-step effect. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the core action and the activation side effect, and the rich schema covers inputs. It is still thin on failure behavior, overwrite semantics, and how it relates to the Update/Delete unit-test siblings.

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 documents all four parameters (class_name, test_class_source, transport_request, detail) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (ABAP Unit tests for a class), and adds the concrete action of writing local test classes and activating the class. The 'for a class' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from CreateCdsUnitTest and CreateFunctionGroupUnitTest, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as UpdateUnitTest (for existing tests) or CreateCdsUnitTest (for CDS entities). The agent must infer that 'Create' is only for classes that lack tests and that the class must already exist.

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