Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteInterface

Delete an ABAP interface from an SAP system through the ADT deletion API. Supply a transport request for transportable objects; it is optional for local objects.

Instructions

Delete an ABAP interface 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
interface_nameYesInterface 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 / interface_name / description
      Previous value: -"Interface name (e.g., Z_MY_INTERFACE)."New value: +"Interface 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that deletion goes through the ADT deletion API and that transport requests are optional for local objects, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions/locks, or what happens on a partial/failed delete 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the transport caveat. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the transport nuance but omits failure/rollback behavior, permission requirements, and confirmation semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps given the operation's risk profile.

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 interface_name, transport_request, and the detail enum thoroughly. The description repeats the optional-transport nuance from the schema without adding new parameter semantics, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (Delete) and resource (ABAP interface) plus the mechanism (ADT deletion API), which readily distinguishes it from the CreateInterface/GetInterface/UpdateInterface siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

The clause 'Transport request optional for local objects' implies usage context for when a transport_request is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like UpdateInterface or DeleteFunctionModule.

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