Skip to main content
Glama
palimkarakshay

abap-mcp

by palimkarakshay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Check ABAP Cloud readiness

check_cloud_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess ABAP source for ABAP Cloud blockers before porting to Clean Core: parses at baseline and Cloud versions, diffs findings, grades tech debt. Static, no SAP connection.

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. It also reports snapshot-dated released-API observations for direct table and function-module references the parser can extract; those stay separate from the language-level blocker count and score. 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: its released-API scan is not exhaustive dependency discovery, it does not connect to any SAP system or run ATC, and a 'ready' verdict means no detected language-level blockers — not a certification. Our A–D grade is blocker density (see gradeMeaning), NOT SAP's own Clean Core Level A–D; a target system's own released-API ATC check ("Usage of Released APIs (Cloudification Repository)" for SAP Cloud ERP Public Edition / "Usage of APIs (Cloudification Repository)" for SAP Cloud ERP Private Edition / on-premise, via variants such as ABAP_CLEAN_CORE_DEVELOPMENT / ABAP_CLEAN_CORE_READINESS) remains authoritative. 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.
editionNoSAP edition of the bundled Cloudification snapshot to check against: "s4hc" (default, SAP Cloud ERP Public Edition), "btp" (SAP BTP ABAP environment), or "pce" (SAP Cloud ERP Private Edition / on-premise). Release state and successors can differ by edition — the same object may be released in one and not yet in another.s4hc
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
gradeYesBlocker-density tech-debt grade (see gradeMeaning): 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.
editionYesSAP edition the released-API findings were checked against.
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
gradeMeaningYesWhat `grade` means: a banding of blockers per file. NOT SAP's own Clean Core Level A–D (see cleanCoreVocabulary.cleanCoreLevels for those) — do not conflate the two.
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.
cleanCoreVocabularyYesSAP's real ATC vocabulary for released-API/Clean Core checks — see docs/atc-vocabulary.json (F04).
releasedApiFindingsYesReleased-API observations from the bundled SAP Cloudification snapshot (deprecated-API usage, direct non-released table access with successor hints, and which edition/source answered each one). Informational — NOT counted in cloudBlockerCount or score.
releasedApiSnapshotDateYesDate of the bundled released-API snapshot the releasedApiFindings reflect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / edition
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "s4hc",
+  "description": "SAP edition of the bundled Cloudification snapshot to check against: \"s4hc\" (default, SAP Cloud ERP Public Edition), \"btp\" (SAP BTP ABAP environment), or \"pce\" (SAP Cloud ERP Private Edition / on-premise). Release state and successors can differ by edition — the same object may be released in one and not yet in another.",
+  "enum": [
+    "s4hc",
+    "btp",
+    "pce"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / cleanCoreVocabulary
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "SAP's real ATC vocabulary for released-API/Clean Core checks — see docs/atc-vocabulary.json (F04).",
+  "properties": {
+    "checks": {
+      "description": "The real ATC checks behind released-API governance (name, edition, note).",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "variants": {
+      "description": "The real ATC check variants, current and deprecated-with-successor.",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "checks",
+    "variants"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / edition
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "SAP edition the released-API findings were checked against.",
+  "enum": [
+    "s4hc",
+    "btp",
+    "pce"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / grade / description
      Previous value: -"Clean 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."New value: +"Blocker-density tech-debt grade (see gradeMeaning): 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."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / gradeMeaning
      Added value: +{
+  "const": "blocker-density",
+  "description": "What `grade` means: a banding of blockers per file. NOT SAP's own Clean Core Level A–D (see cleanCoreVocabulary.cleanCoreLevels for those) — do not conflate the two.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / releasedApiFindings / description
      Previous value: -"Released-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."New value: +"Released-API observations from the bundled SAP Cloudification snapshot (deprecated-API usage, direct non-released table access with successor hints, and which edition/source answered each one). Informational — NOT counted in cloudBlockerCount or score."
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "verdict",
-  "score",
-  "grade",
-  "cloudBlockerCount",
-  "fileCount",
-  "categories",
-  "brokenAtBaseline",
-  "releasedApiFindings",
-  "releasedApiSnapshotDate",
-  "baselineVersion",
-  "scopeNote"
-]New value: +[
+  "verdict",
+  "score",
+  "grade",
+  "gradeMeaning",
+  "cloudBlockerCount",
+  "fileCount",
+  "categories",
+  "brokenAtBaseline",
+  "releasedApiFindings",
+  "releasedApiSnapshotDate",
+  "edition",
+  "baselineVersion",
+  "scopeNote",
+  "cleanCoreVocabulary"
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.5

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With safety already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), the description adds substantial behavior: it is static and parser-level, connects to no SAP system, runs no ATC, and its 'ready' verdict means no detected language-level blockers rather than certification. It also explains the grade is blocker density, not SAP's Clean Core Level A-D.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then mechanism, outputs, triggers, limits, grade caveat and example follow in a logical order. It is dense and long with heavy nested clauses, so it is slightly oversized, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

For a static analysis tool with an output schema already defining return values, the description covers purpose, scope, limitations, grading semantics and routing to the authoritative check. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds the two-pass framing that gives context to baselineVersion (v758 baseline vs Cloud) and to edition-based snapshot selection, reinforcing rather than merely repeating schema text.

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?

It gives a specific verb+resource (assess ABAP source distance from ABAP Cloud Clean Core tier 1) and even explains the mechanism (parse twice at baseline and Cloud, diff). It clearly demarcates itself from the sibling check_released_api by stating its released-API scan is separate from the language-level blocker count and not exhaustive dependency discovery.

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?

It states explicit triggers ('is this code cloud-ready / Clean Core compliant', before porting classic ABAP, for a graded tech-debt assessment of an abapGit export) and explicit non-uses (static/parser-level, no SAP connection, no ATC, not a certification). It also names the authoritative alternative (a target system's own ATC released-API check with specific variants), so the agent knows when to defer.

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