abap-config-mcp

Deploy In-System Engine (choose transportability)

engine_deploy

Idempotent

Install or manage in-system ABAP engine units, choosing per unit between transportable Workbench package deployment and local $TMP, or view setup/status.

Instructions

Install/manage the MCP's in-system ABAP, choosing per unit whether it is TRANSPORTABLE (created in a Workbench Z package on a transport, to be released to Production via CTS independent of the MCP) or deployed to $TMP (local, Dev-only). Run with NO unit to see the first-run setup prompt (or current status). Run per unit to deploy/flip: engine_deploy unit:"diag" transportable:true package:"ZMCP_DIAG" transport:"DEVK9…" engine_deploy unit:"cust" transportable:false Re-run any time to flip a unit (e.g. promote a higher-tier unit to transportable). Units: diag (Tier 0 read-only diagnostics) · cust (Tier 1 customizing engine). After a transportable deploy, register the unit's SICF node once (reported in the output). Which engine tool: engine_deploy for the first setup of a system and to choose or change where a unit lives (transportable or $TMP); customizing_engine_bootstrap only to install or update the customizing engine in place (the customizing tools also do that themselves via autoDeploy); customizing_engine_cleanup to remove it; customizing_engine_ping to check what is installed.

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": "engine_deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`unit`	No	Unit to deploy: 'diag' or 'cust'. Omit to see the setup prompt / status.
`package`	No	Workbench Z package for a transportable deploy (required when transportable:true; must not be $TMP).
`transport`	No	Workbench transport request to record the objects onto (for a transportable deploy).
`connectionId`	No	SAP system connection ID
`transportable`	No	true = create in a Workbench Z package on a transport (CTS to Prod); false/omitted = $TMP (Dev-only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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?

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds what they cannot: transportable deploys land in a Workbench Z package on a CTS transport and reach Production independently of the MCP, $TMP deploys are Dev-only, and a transportable deploy requires a one-time SICF node registration reported in the output. Flipping behavior and the Dev-only limitation of $TMP are disclosed up front.

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 core distinction and the no-unit behavior, followed by two compact examples and a routing paragraph. The inline example lines and line breaks are functional, though the description is long enough that some phrasing (e.g. restating 'flip a unit') could be trimmed.

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?

With 5 all-optional parameters, no output schema, and a mutation-style tool, the description covers what an agent needs: the transportability decision, the required SICF follow-up, re-run idempotency, and how sibling engine tools differ. Return values needn't be explained since the output references the SICF node directly.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by showing worked invocations that demonstrate how unit, transportable, package, and transport combine (e.g. package only matters for a transportable deploy). It reinforces rather than duplicates the schema's requiredness note, so it earns slightly above baseline.

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 ('Install/manage the MCP's in-system ABAP') plus the distinguishing decision the tool exists for: choosing TRANSPORTABLE vs $TMP per unit. It explicitly separates itself from customizing_engine_bootstrap/cleanup/ping, so an agent can pick it without opening another 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use rules: call with NO unit for the setup prompt or status, call per unit to deploy or flip, re-run any time to promote a unit. The 'Which engine tool' paragraph names three alternatives and the exact condition that selects each (bootstrap = install/update in place, cleanup = remove, ping = check what's installed).

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

Deploy Server