Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteCdsUnitTest

Remove the ABAP Unit test class linked to a CDS view, deleting its associated unit tests from the SAP system in one call.

Instructions

Delete the ABAP Unit tests of a CDS view: delete its test 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_nameYesTest class of the CDS view.
transport_requestNoTransport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Global test class name (e.g., ZCL_CDS_TEST)."New value: +"Test class of the CDS view."
    • 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 / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number (required for transportable packages)."New value: +"Transport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object."
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive operation but does not state irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, or the consequence of deleting the test class. The only added context is that the deletion targets the test class specifically.

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 tight sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing wasted.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits irreversibility warnings, transport-request implications, and any failure modes. The schema covers parameters, but behavioral completeness for a delete operation is lacking.

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 three parameters (detail, class_name, transport_request) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the hint that class_name is the test class, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Delete the ABAP Unit tests of a CDS view', and clarifies the scope with 'delete its test class'. This distinguishes it from generic DeleteUnitTest and DeleteFunctionGroupUnitTest by naming the CDS view target, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a transport request for transportable objects), and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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