Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

DeleteUnitTest

Remove ABAP Unit local test classes from an existing class while keeping the class intact. Use it to clean up test code without deleting the production class.

Instructions

Delete the ABAP Unit tests of a class: remove its local test classes, keeping the class.

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_nameYesClass that holds the tests. Must already exist.
transport_requestNoTransport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / class_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Class that holds the tests. Must already exist.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • 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"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / run_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Run identifier returned by CreateUnitTest/RunUnitTest.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / transport_request
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Transport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "run_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "class_name"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 does disclose the key destructive scope (local test classes removed, class retained), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about reversibility, required authorizations, transport/lock implications, or the effect of the transport_request parameter on a deletion.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and the boundary in one clause. No filler or 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted and what survives, which is the essential fact. It omits prerequisites, authorization/transport requirements, and error behavior, so it is adequate but not 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 three parameters (class_name, transport_request, detail) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for detail. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond 'of a class', so the 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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) and a precise resource (ABAP Unit tests / local test classes of a class), and explicitly scopes the operation with 'keeping the class', which disambiguates it from DeleteClass and approaches DeleteLocalTestClass. An agent can identify the target without opening the schema.

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 implies when it applies by specifying it removes only local test classes while retaining the class, but it never states prerequisites, when to prefer DeleteUnitTest over DeleteLocalTestClass, or any exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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