Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteLocalTypes

Remove local type definitions from an ABAP class by clearing its implementations include. Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation.

Instructions

Delete local types from an ABAP class by clearing the implementations include. Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation.

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real internal behavior ('Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation'), which is useful context an agent cannot get from the schema. However, it omits critical detail for a destructive operation: irreversibility, permission requirements, transport handling, and what happens when activation fails.

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 tight sentences with no waste; purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral note follows. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanism and lifecycle but leaves gaps around permissions, transport behavior, and return expectations. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 all four parameters (including the 'detail' enum and 'transport_request') are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the optional activation concept covered by 'activate_on_delete', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 local types from an ABAP class') plus the exact mechanism ('clearing the implementations include'), which is well beyond restating the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like DeleteLocalDefinitions, DeleteLocalMacros, or DeleteLocalTestClass, leaving the agent to rely on the name to disambiguate.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as UpdateLocalTypes or GetLocalTypes. Nothing tells the agent under what circumstances local types should be cleared versus other local-type operations.

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