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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteServiceBinding

Deletes an ABAP service binding through the ADT deletion API, with an optional transport request for local objects.

Instructions

Delete ABAP service binding via ADT deletion API. Transport request optional for local 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": {
      "service_binding_name": "<service_binding_name>"
    },
    "name": "DeleteServiceBinding"
  }
}

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
response_formatNoAccepted for backward compatibility; no longer affects the answer, which is always the structured deletion result.xml
transport_requestNoOptional transport request for deletion transport flow.
service_binding_nameYesService binding name to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format / description
      Added value: +"Accepted for backward compatibility; no longer affects the answer, which is always the structured deletion result."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that deletion goes through the ADT deletion API, that transport is optional for local objects, and that it runs outside batch mode. It does not state irreversibility, required permissions, error behavior, or side effects on dependent objects, leaving significant safety gaps 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded. No repetition or filler.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, transport handling, and batch-mode behavior. It omits irreversibility, permission prerequisites, and error conditions, which are important for safely invoking a delete tool. Adequate but with clear safety gaps.

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 all four parameters. The description adds only one semantic detail beyond the schema: that transport_request is optional specifically for local objects. It does not explain the detail or response_format parameters, but the schema already covers them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete ABAP service binding'. It adds the mechanism ('via ADT deletion API'), making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools such as DeleteServiceDefinition, so sibling selection still requires inference.

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 description provides contextual constraints—transport request is optional for local objects and the tool runs outside batch mode—but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteServiceDefinition or UpdateServiceBinding. Usage is implied by the verb, not guided.

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