Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteServiceBinding

Removes an ABAP service binding through the ADT deletion API. Optionally supply a transport request when deleting local objects.

Instructions

Delete ABAP service binding via ADT deletion API. Transport request optional for local objects.

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
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 bears the full burden for a destructive operation. It does disclose that deletion goes through the ADT deletion API and that the transport request is only needed for non-local objects, adding real behavioral context. It omits permissions/prerequisites, irreversibility, and cascading effects, so it is only partially transparent for a delete tool.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action (delete) is front-loaded ahead of the transport nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and transport conditionality but does not explain what is returned or what preconditions/permissions are required. Adequate but with clear gaps given the operation's risk.

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 are already documented in the schema, including the enums for detail and response_format (the latter explicitly noted as a no-op kept for backward compatibility). The description only restates the transport_request conditionality, adding little beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 expectation.

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 (Delete) and a precise resource (ABAP service binding via ADT deletion API), which cleanly distinguishes it from GetServiceBinding, CreateServiceBinding, UpdateServiceBinding, and the other Delete* siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource naming 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?

The clause 'Transport request optional for local objects' gives a conditional usage hint for one parameter, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as deactivating the binding (ActivateServiceBinding) or the delete-vs-update decision, leaving selection largely implied by the tool name.

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