Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-abap-adt

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteLocalMacros

Clears the macros include to delete local macros from an ABAP class, handling lock, update, unlock, and optional activation outside batch mode.

Instructions

Delete local macros from an ABAP class by clearing the macros include. Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation. Note: Macros belong to older ABAP versions. 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": {
      "class_name": "<class_name>"
    },
    "name": "DeleteLocalMacros"
  }
}

Input 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_nameYesParent class name.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task.
activate_on_deleteNoActivate parent class after deleting. Default: false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Parent class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Parent 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."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names the internal lifecycle (lock, update, unlock) and the optional activation step, plus the batch-mode restriction. It remains silent on reversibility of the delete and on permission/transport requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism before the behavioral notes. Slightly loose with the parenthetical 'Note:' but no wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers locking, activation, and batch constraints but omits what the delete returns and whether it is recoverable. It is adequate but not fully rounded out.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters; the description only echoes 'optional activation' via 'optional activation' phrasing. This meets the baseline but adds no extra syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete local macros from an ABAP class') and explains the mechanism ('by clearing the macros include'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like GetLocalMacros or UpdateLocalMacros, 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a real usage constraint ('Runs outside batch mode') and context about ABAP version relevance, implying when the tool applies. However it does not explicitly say when to choose this over UpdateLocalMacros or how it relates to GetLocalMacros, leaving selection partly inferred.

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