Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteDomain

Deletes an ABAP domain from an SAP system through the ADT deletion API, with an optional transport request for local objects.

Instructions

Delete an ABAP domain 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
domain_nameYesDomain 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
    • 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 / domain_name / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name (e.g., Z_MY_DOMAIN)."New value: +"Domain name."
    • 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

B3.1/5.0
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 for a destructive operation. It does not disclose irreversibility, required authorizations, what happens if the domain is referenced by other objects, or error behavior; it only notes the API used and the transport-request conditional.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly under-informative rather than verbose, but structurally clean.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits destructive-nature warnings, prerequisites, failure modes, and any mention of the detail response control. An agent has enough to select it but not enough to invoke it safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'transport request optional for local objects' merely restates what the transport_request schema field already says, adding no new syntax or format detail, and it says nothing about domain_name or the detail enum.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (ABAP domain) and names the mechanism (ADT deletion API). The 'Delete' prefix cleanly separates it from the sibling CreateDomain/GetDomain/UpdateDomain/ActivateDomain/CheckDomain without ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g., object must exist, must be inactive or already activated). The transport note is contextual color rather than usage routing.

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