mcp-abap-adt

DeleteFunctionModule

Deletes an ABAP function module from an SAP system via the ADT deletion API; provide a transport request for transportable objects or omit it for local objects.

Instructions

Delete an ABAP function module from the SAP system via ADT deletion API. Transport request optional for local objects. Runs outside batch mode.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "function_module_name": "<function_module_name>",
      "function_group_name": "<function_group_name>"
    },
    "name": "DeleteFunctionModule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	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).	terse
`transport_request`	No	Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects.
`function_group_name`	Yes	FunctionGroup name containing the function module.
`function_module_name`	Yes	FunctionModule name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0Oct 4, 2026

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 / function_group_name / description

Previous value: -"FunctionGroup name containing the function module (e.g., Z_MY_FUNCTIONGROUP)."New value: +"FunctionGroup name containing the function module."

changedInput schema / properties / function_module_name / description

Previous value: -"FunctionModule name (e.g., Z_MY_FUNCTIONMODULE)."New value: +"FunctionModule 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."

Changed2 schema fields changedMar 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / function_group_name

Added value: +{
+  "description": "FunctionGroup name containing the function module (e.g., Z_MY_FUNCTIONGROUP).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "function_module_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "function_module_name",
+  "function_group_name"
+]

First observedDec 29, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: transport handling for local vs transportable objects, and that it runs outside batch mode (so it cannot be batched). However, it never states irreversibility, whether the module must be inactive, or permission requirements — significant omissions for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The batch-mode note is slightly orphaned in placement but still earns its place as behavioral context.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must be self-sufficient, yet it omits the consequences of deletion (irreversibility, effect on transports/inactive objects) that an agent needs before invoking a destructive call. What is present is accurate but thin for a delete tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the transport_request distinction. The description merely echoes that transport is optional for local objects and adds no format, naming, or enum guidance beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 function module) plus the mechanism (ADT deletion API), which cleanly separates it from siblings like DeleteFunctionGroup, DeleteFunctionInclude and DeleteStructure. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or scope constraint, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus DeleteFunctionGroup or CheckFunctionModule, and no prerequisites described. The 'transport request optional for local objects' line hints at a conditional context but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool or what must be true first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server