Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateCdsUnitTest

Replace the local test classes of a CDS view's ABAP Unit test class and activate it to keep tests in sync with the view.

Instructions

Update the ABAP Unit tests of a CDS view: replace the local test classes in its test class and activate it.

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_nameYesTest class of the CDS view. Must already exist.
test_class_sourceYesABAP source of the local test classes: definitions and implementations, FOR TESTING. Replaces what the include holds.
transport_requestNoTransport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Global test class name (e.g., ZCL_CDS_TEST)."New value: +"Test class of the CDS view. Must already exist."
    • 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 / test_class_source / description
      Previous value: -"Updated local test class ABAP source code."New value: +"ABAP source of the local test classes: definitions and implementations, FOR TESTING. Replaces what the include holds."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number (required for transportable packages)."New value: +"Transport request, not a task. Required for a transportable object."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 the include contents are replaced and that the object is activated as a side effect—meaningful mutation context. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, activation failure behavior, or whether the replacement is reversible.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is dense but every clause (replace, activate) contributes to understanding the operation.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral framing. It covers the mutation itself but omits return behavior, activation outcomes, and transport implications, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool of this kind.

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 (including the detail enum and transport_request) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal mapping by naming the test class and local test classes it operates on, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (update ABAP Unit tests of a CDS view) and clarifies the exact operation: replacing the local test classes in the test class and activating it. An agent can distinguish this from CreateCdsUnitTest or DeleteCdsUnitTest by the update/replace semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as CreateCdsUnitTest or UpdateLocalTestClass. The word 'replace' implies the test class already exists, but this is left to inference and the schema field note rather than stated as a selection criterion.

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