abap-config-mcp

Remove Customizing Engine

customizing_engine_cleanup

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes the Customizing Engine class ZCL_MCP_CUST_ENGINE from an SAP system, previewing changes unless confirm is true; use only to remove the engine, not update it.

Instructions

Delete the Customizing Engine class ZCL_MCP_CUST_ENGINE from the SAP system. Without confirm: true it only shows what would happen and changes nothing. The report ZMCP_CUST_WRITE and the SICF service node are not removed; delete the node manually in SICF. Customizing tools that need the engine stop working until customizing_engine_bootstrap or engine_deploy installs it again. Use it only to remove the engine from a system; to update it, run customizing_engine_bootstrap. Deletion is irreversible and uses the same delete path as delete_abap_object.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "customizing_engine_cleanup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Set true to delete the class; false or omitted only prints the warning and deletes nothing (default: false)
`connectionId`	No	SAP system connection ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.2Nov 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Must be true to actually delete (default: false = show what would happen)"New value: +"Set true to delete the class; false or omitted only prints the warning and deletes nothing (default: false)"

First observedv1.16.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, it discloses the dry-run default (confirm omitted changes nothing), what deletion does NOT cover (report ZMCP_CUST_WRITE and the SICF service node, which must be removed manually), the downstream breakage of customizing tools, and irreversibility. This is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and object, then constraints, then side effects and alternatives — a sensible order with no filler. The confirm sentence overlaps the schema description slightly, a minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists and none is needed for a delete operation; the description covers safety, irreversibility, residual artifacts, and recovery path. Nothing an agent needs before calling this destructive tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description nevertheless reinforces the semantics of confirm by spelling out the consequences of the no-confirm path. It adds little about connectionId, but nothing is misleading.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — deleting class ZCL_MCP_CUST_ENGINE from the SAP system — and names the exact object affected. An agent can distinguish it from customizing_engine_bootstrap, engine_deploy, and delete_abap_object without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit exclusions and alternatives: 'Use it only to remove the engine from a system; to update it, run customizing_engine_bootstrap,' plus the recovery note that bootstrap or engine_deploy re-installs it. The delete-path comparison to delete_abap_object further routes the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server