abap-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check ABAP released-API status

check_released_api

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if an ABAP object is a released API for ABAP Cloud, deprecated, or not-released, and get SAP's successor CDS views for classic objects.

Instructions

Look up ABAP repository objects (DB tables, CDS view entities, function modules, classes, interfaces, …) in SAP's published ABAP Cloudification list and report, per object, whether it is a 'released' API (safe to use in ABAP Cloud / Clean Core), 'deprecated' (released but being retired), or 'not-released' (a classic/internal object that is not a public API — e.g. most classic DDIC tables) — with SAP's own successor(s) when the snapshot has any, a curated CDS successor hint otherwise, and a classicAPI/noAPI/internalAPI classification where SAP publishes one. This reflects SAP's official per-edition Cloudification lists as bundled in this package (default edition "s4hc", snapshot 2026-09-10); it ships offline with the server. Use this when you need to know if your code may reference a given object in ABAP Cloud, or which released CDS view to use instead of a classic table. This explicit lookup complements check_cloud_readiness's limited, source-extracted released-API observations and can check objects that do not appear in the supplied source. It does not connect to any SAP system, does not run ATC, and is only as current as the bundled snapshot — 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; treat an 'absent from the list' result as 'not-released as of the snapshot', not as proof. Example: check_released_api({ "objects": ["MARA", "I_Product", "BAPI_MATERIAL_GET_DETAIL"] }).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`edition`	No	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.	s4hc
`objects`	Yes	Objects to check, 1–200 per call. Each is a bare name string or a { name, type? } object, e.g. ["MARA", { "name": "I_Product", "type": "CDS_STOB" }].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes	URL of the SAP Apache-2.0 source the snapshot was built from.
`edition`	Yes	SAP edition these results were checked against.
`results`	Yes
`snapshotDate`	Yes	Date of the bundled SAP Cloudification snapshot these results reflect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.12.0Sep 12, 2026

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 / edition

Added value: +{
+  "description": "SAP edition these results were checked against.",
+  "enum": [
+    "s4hc",
+    "btp",
+    "pce"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / classification

Added value: +{
+  "description": "SAP's classicAPI/noAPI/internalAPI classification for this object, from objectClassifications_SAP.json, when recorded.",
+  "enum": [
+    "classicAPI",
+    "noAPI",
+    "internalAPI"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / successor / description

Previous value: -"Curated released CDS view-entity successor for a classic table, when one is known."New value: +"Released successor for a deprecated/classic object, when one is known — SAP's own, or the curated fallback (see successorSource)."

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / successorSource

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where `successor` came from: SAP's own snapshot data, the curated table-successors fallback, or none available.",
+  "enum": [
+    "sap",
+    "curated",
+    "none"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / successors

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Every SAP-published successor object for this record (there can be more than one), when the snapshot carries any.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "objectType": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "objectType",
+      "name"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "state",
-  "recorded"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "state",
+  "recorded",
+  "successorSource"
+]

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "snapshotDate",
-  "source",
-  "results"
-]New value: +[
+  "snapshotDate",
+  "source",
+  "edition",
+  "results"
+]

First observedv0.4.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: no SAP system connection, no ATC execution, tied to a specific bundled snapshot (edition s4hc, 2026-09-10), and the crucial caveat that 'absent from the list' means 'not-released as of the snapshot' rather than proof. That is exactly the kind of limitation an agent must know before trusting the result.

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 purpose, classification states, then caveats and example, so nothing critical is buried. It is dense and long, and the tail listing of ATC variant names (ABAP_CLEAN_CORE_DEVELOPMENT / ABAP_CLEAN_CORE_READINESS) is more detail than an agent strictly needs, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still supplies the classification vocabulary, successor-hint behavior, snapshot/edition scoping, and a call example. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the edition enum and the objects/name/type structure are already documented in the schema, including the per-edition difference caveat. The description reinforces edition semantics and supplies a worked example, but adds little meaning the schema does not already carry; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (look up/report) plus concrete resource (ABAP repository objects in SAP's Cloudification list) with the exact three-state classification spelled out. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_cloud_readiness, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

States the triggering need ('when you need to know if your code may reference a given object in ABAP Cloud, or which released CDS view to use instead of a classic table') and names the complementary alternative check_cloud_readiness plus its limitation. It also names the authoritative fallback (target system ATC check) and the conditions under which this lookup is insufficient.

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

Deploy Server