Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteClass

Deletes an ABAP class from an SAP system using the ADT deletion API. Transport request is optional for local objects and required for transportable ones.

Instructions

Delete an ABAP class from the SAP system via ADT deletion API. Transport request optional for local objects.

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 name.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Class 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 / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number (e.g., E19K905635). Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects ($TMP)."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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. Beyond naming the API and the transport rule, it says nothing about irreversibility, authorization requirements, dependency/in-use checks, or error behavior for a destructive operation. The word 'Delete' alone implies permanence but the definition adds little beyond it.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the transport qualifier follows immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more for a destructive tool: what happens on success/failure, whether deletion is recoverable, and how dependencies are handled are all unstated. It covers the parameters adequately but leaves behavioral context thin.

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 class_name, transport_request, and the detail enum. The description's note on transport_request ('optional for local objects') merely repeats what the schema already states, so no meaning is added. 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 an ABAP class') and names the mechanism (ADT deletion API), so an agent can distinguish it from the many Delete* siblings by resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the alternative delete tools (DeleteInterface, DeleteLocalTestClass, etc.), leaving that differentiation to the resource noun alone.

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?

'Transport request optional for local objects' gives a conditional usage hint tied to the nature of the target class. It does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor state prerequisites or when deletion is inappropriate (e.g., class in use, active vs inactive).

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