Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteLocalMacros

Remove local macros from an ABAP class by clearing the macros include, handling lock, update, unlock, and optional activation. Use for older ABAP versions that still support macros.

Instructions

Delete local macros from an ABAP class by clearing the macros include. Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation. Note: Macros are supported in older ABAP versions but not in newer ones.

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_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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: lock/update/unlock handling and optional post-delete activation, plus the version-support caveat. It stops short of stating required permissions, transport/lock prerequisites, or what happens when no macros include exists, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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 verb+resource+mechanism before the behavioral and version notes. No filler, though the lock/update/unlock clause is slightly cryptic without elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, side effects, and the important version caveat. Remaining gaps (error behavior, authorization, whether the parent class must be inactive) are moderate rather than critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a small amount by tying "optional activation" to activate_on_delete and framing the operation as a mutation that manages locks. The transport_request and detail parameters get no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Delete local macros from an ABAP class") and goes further by naming the mechanism ("by clearing the macros include"). This distinguishes it from the other Delete* siblings (DeleteLocalTypes, DeleteLocalDefinitions, DeleteLocalTestClass) without needing to open a schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the DeleteLocal* siblings. The closing note that macros exist only in older ABAP versions is an implied precondition, but the agent must infer that this tool is effectively a no-op or error on newer systems.

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