Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateUnitTest

Replace the local ABAP Unit test classes of an existing class and activate it, keeping its unit tests aligned with the current implementation.

Instructions

Update the ABAP Unit tests of a class: replace its local test classes and activate 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.
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. Changed6 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 / test_class_source
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ABAP source of the local test classes: definitions and implementations, FOR TESTING. Replaces what the include holds.",
+  "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",
+  "test_class_source"
+]
  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 burden, and it does disclose two important traits: existing local test classes are replaced (destructive overwrite) and the class is activated as a side effect. It says nothing about transport requirements, permission needs, or what happens if activation fails.

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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the two effects (replace, activate) clearly appended. No filler, though it is arguably terse given the mutation's weight.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits transport/lock requirements, error behavior, and differentiation from UpdateLocalTestClass. Adequate but with clear 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 all four parameters (including the 'detail' enum and 'transport_request') are already documented in the schema. The description adds the replacement semantics of test_class_source but nothing about detail or transport handling, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the ABAP Unit tests of a class') plus the concrete mechanism ('replace its local test classes and activate the class'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent UpdateLocalTestClass, UpdateCdsUnitTest, or CreateUnitTest siblings.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over UpdateLocalTestClass, CreateUnitTest, or UpdateClass, nor any precondition beyond what the schema implies. The only usage signal is implied: it overwrites existing local test classes, so it is for modifying tests that already exist.

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