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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteMessageClassMessage

Deletes one T100 message by number from an ABAP message class while preserving the class and remaining messages; requires a transport request for transportable objects.

Instructions

Remove one message (by number) from an ABAP message class (T100), keeping the class and its other messages. Transport request required for transportable 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": {
      "message_class_name": "<message_class_name>",
      "msgno": "<msgno>"
    },
    "name": "DeleteMessageClassMessage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
msgnoYesMessage number to delete (e.g., "001").
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects, optional for local ones.
message_class_nameYesParent message class name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / message_class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Parent message class name (e.g., ZMY_MSGS)."New value: +"Parent message class name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number. Required for transportable objects, optional for local ($TMP)."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects, optional for local ones."
  2. Addedv8.6.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavioral traits: the operation is destructive but surgical ('keeping the class and its other messages'), it requires a transport request for transportable objects, and it cannot run inside batch mode (a real constraint given BatchBegin/BatchEnd siblings). It omits reversibility and any permission/authorization requirements.

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 action and scope, then the two operational constraints. No filler; the only slight cost is that 'Runs outside batch mode' is terse enough to require interpretation.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, transport prerequisite and batch-mode exclusion. It still leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether the deletion is reversible, what the call returns on success/failure, and whether activation or inactive-object handling is involved.

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 msgno, transport_request and message_class_name are already documented. The description's '(by number)' and transport note largely restate the schema; it adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g. leading-zero handling, what a non-transportable/local object means in practice). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource + narrow scope: 'Remove one message (by number) from an ABAP message class (T100), keeping the class and its other messages.' The clause about preserving the class and remaining messages cleanly separates it from DeleteMessageClass and from UpdateMessageClassMessage/CreateMessageClassMessage without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by scoping ('one message') and two conditions are stated (transport request for transportable objects, runs outside batch mode). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative such as DeleteMessageClass for whole-class removal or UpdateMessageClassMessage for edits.

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