Remove breakpoints from ABAP debugging sessions to clean up debug configurations and manage debugging workflows.
Deletes breakpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| breakpoint | Yes | The breakpoint to delete. | |
| debuggingMode | Yes | The debugging mode. | |
| terminalId | Yes | The terminal ID. | |
| ideId | Yes | The IDE ID. | |
| requestUser | Yes | The requesting user. | |
| scope | No | The debugger scope. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the primary action. It does not explain side effects, error behavior, or requirements (e.g., whether it deletes a single breakpoint or all breakpoints in a session).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise as a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name and provides no additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, one nested object) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters relate to the operation, what a successful deletion looks like, or any constraints or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are extremely generic (e.g., 'The IDE ID.'), and the tool description does not add any additional semantic context or relationships between parameters. Thus, the description itself adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes breakpoints' is a tautology of the tool name debuggerDeleteBreakpoints, adding no new information. It does not specify the scope (e.g., which breakpoints, all breakpoints) or distinguish itself from sibling tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., active debugging session) or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.