Skip to main content
Glama

Check ABAP Cloud readiness

check_cloud_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze ABAP source files for ABAP Cloud readiness by parsing against a classic baseline and a Cloud version, then reporting genuine cloud blockers with a tech-debt grade.

Instructions

Assess how far ABAP source is from ABAP Cloud (Clean Core tier 1) by parsing it twice — once at a classic baseline (default v758) and once at version Cloud — and diffing: findings that appear only at Cloud are genuine cloud blockers (statements ABAP Cloud removed), reported in categories (dynpro, list output, native SQL, report events, …) with a transparent score, an A–D tech-debt grade and a verdict; findings already present at the baseline are reported separately as broken code, not migration work. Use this when someone asks 'is this code cloud-ready / Clean Core compliant / S/4HANA-cloud safe', before porting classic ABAP into an ABAP Cloud environment, or for a graded tech-debt assessment of an abapGit export. It is static and parser-level: it does not check released-API usage (that needs a system's ATC), does not connect to any SAP system, and a 'ready' verdict means no language-level blockers — not a certification. Example: check_cloud_readiness({ "files": [ { "source": "REPORT zold.\nWRITE: / 'hi'." } ] }).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesSource files to analyze, up to 32 per call, 100k chars each.
baselineVersionNoClassic ABAP version the code is assumed to run on today; used to separate broken-anyway code from cloud blockers.v758

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeYesClean Core tech-debt grade banded on blocker density: A = no blockers, B = ≤ 0.5 blockers/file, C = ≤ 2 blockers/file, D = more. The same objective count as the score, sized for assessment reports.
scoreYes100 − 5×blockers, floored at 0. Transparent, not an oracle.
verdictYesBanded verdict from the blocker count (0 / ≤5 / ≤20 / >20).
fileCountYesFiles analyzed — the denominator of the grade's density banding.
scopeNoteYesExactly what this check does and does not cover.
categoriesYes
baselineVersionYesThe baseline used.
brokenAtBaselineYesFindings that fail even at the baseline version — fix first, they are not migration items.
cloudBlockerCountYesStatements valid at the baseline but not in ABAP Cloud.
releasedApiFindingsYesReleased-API observations from the bundled SAP Cloudification snapshot (deprecated-API usage, direct non-released table access with successor hints). Informational — NOT counted in cloudBlockerCount or score.
releasedApiSnapshotDateYesDate of the bundled released-API snapshot the releasedApiFindings reflect.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, not open world. The description adds substantial behavioral context: parsing twice with baseline and cloud versions, diffing, reporting broken code separately, static analysis, no external connections. It explains the process and output structure transparently.

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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured: method, output, usage, limitations, example. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the level of detail is appropriate for a complex tool, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (parsing source, multiple versions, categories) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what, how, when, limitations, and includes an example. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning: explains baselineVersion's role (separate broken code from blockers), gives an example call for files, and clarifies that omitting filename infers type. It enhances understanding beyond schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool assesses ABAP source for ABAP Cloud readiness by parsing twice and diffing, providing categories, score, grade, and verdict. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does not check released API usage (unlike check_released_api) and is static/parser-level.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use: for cloud-readiness queries, before porting to ABAP Cloud, or for tech-debt assessment. It also clarifies limitations: does not check released-API usage (needs ATC), no system connection, verdict is language-level only, not certification. This provides clear when/not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/palimkarakshay/abap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server