Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteStructure

Delete an ABAP structure from an SAP system through the ADT deletion API, with an optional transport request for local objects.

Instructions

Delete an ABAP structure from the SAP system 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
structure_nameYesStructure name.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / structure_name / description
      Previous value: -"Structure name (e.g., Z_MY_STRUCTURE)."New value: +"Structure name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number (e.g., E19K905635). Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects ($TMP)."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects. Optional for local objects."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool deletes via the ADT deletion API but does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, whether the object must be inactive, what happens on failure, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the transport caveat following. Nothing is wasted, though it is lean to the point of omitting useful destructive-operation context.

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 simple 3-parameter delete tool with one required argument and fully-described schema, the basics are covered. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least warn about destructive/irreversible behavior and any prerequisites, which it omits.

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 structure_name, transport_request, and the detail enum fully. The description's 'transport request optional for local objects' merely restates what the schema says, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete an ABAP structure from the SAP system') plus the mechanism (ADT deletion API), which cleanly separates it from DeleteTable, DeleteInterface, and CreateStructure/UpdateStructure siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling boundaries, but the resource 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 conditional context for one parameter, implying when a transport is required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. object must be inactive/unlocked), and no note on irreversibility of a delete.

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