Everything in ABAP

Only on SAP S/4HANA 2023 and 2025, on premise or private cloud: [SAP S/4HANA Cloud, Public Edition](external:sap-s4hana-cloud-public-edition) and the [SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment) are listed as coming soon, and a 2023 system has to leave out `ZABAP_PRC_EVENTS_SE_2025`, whose event-based side effects rely on APIs released with S/4HANA 2025. Not for a system that already carries a copy, because object names are global and two versions cannot live side by side, and not for a productive system by way of the `ZABAP_PRC_DEMO*` packages, which the README states are not intended for one and whose init classes delete and rebuild their own tables on every run. While the major version is 0 the public API is not stable: minor bumps carry breaking changes with no deprecation period, so productive use means pinning a tag and reading the CHANGELOG before every upgrade.

Not a system to run a business application on: there is no business application in it, and what it implements of the language, the dictionary and Gateway is a stated subset of each. It is a clean-room reimplementation of the `/IWBEP/` interfaces that bundles no SAP source and no standard DDIC, so a service that reads standard objects has nothing to read, and `ANORMALIES.md` records every place the runtime differs from SAP before any workaround is written.

The project states that until v1.0.0 is reached, breaking changes may occur without prior notice. Rule items do not chain: every rule operates on the original input string, so a format whose second step needs the result of the first needs a custom logic class. A REPLACE rule whose replacement produces the exact same string as the input is reported as `no match`, which the documentation records as a known limitation.

Its README says it plainly and so does this entry: this is not a simulation, every tool call reaches a live BW system, and write operations produce real changes. BW modelling objects are the definition of a warehouse — the blast radius of a wrong one is every report built on it.

Not an end-user app: it reads from any table the user names and writes into tables of the Z/Y namespace, with no authorisation check of its own, so the README asks a project to add its own checks on `S_TABU_DIS`/`S_TABU_NAM` and to restrict who may run it before it is used beyond a development system. XLSX upload and download are not ready for ABAP Cloud yet, and of the upload apps only the JSON one writes the file's rows back to the database.

Its README says it plainly and so does this entry: this is not a simulation, every tool call reaches a live BW system, and write operations produce real changes. BW modelling objects are the definition of a warehouse — the blast radius of a wrong one is every report built on it.

The app writes to whatever table is passed in the URL parameter `table` and carries no authorisation check of its own, so past a development system it needs authorisation checks added and a restriction on who may run it.

Only on SAP S/4HANA 2023 and 2025, on premise or private cloud: [SAP S/4HANA Cloud, Public Edition](external:sap-s4hana-cloud-public-edition) and the [SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment) are listed as coming soon, and a 2023 system has to leave out `ZABAP_PRC_EVENTS_SE_2025`, whose event-based side effects rely on APIs released with S/4HANA 2025. Not for a system that already carries a copy, because object names are global and two versions cannot live side by side, and not for a productive system by way of the `ZABAP_PRC_DEMO*` packages, which the README states are not intended for one and whose init classes delete and rebuild their own tables on every run. While the major version is 0 the public API is not stable: minor bumps carry breaking changes with no deprecation period, so productive use means pinning a tag and reading the CHANGELOG before every upgrade.

Only on SAP S/4HANA 2023 and 2025, on premise or private cloud: [SAP S/4HANA Cloud, Public Edition](external:sap-s4hana-cloud-public-edition) and the [SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment) are listed as coming soon, and a 2023 system has to leave out `ZABAP_PRC_EVENTS_SE_2025`, whose event-based side effects rely on APIs released with S/4HANA 2025. Not for a system that already carries a copy, because object names are global and two versions cannot live side by side, and not for a productive system by way of the `ZABAP_PRC_DEMO*` packages, which the README states are not intended for one and whose init classes delete and rebuild their own tables on every run. While the major version is 0 the public API is not stable: minor bumps carry breaking changes with no deprecation period, so productive use means pinning a tag and reading the CHANGELOG before every upgrade.

A descendant rather than a distinct idea: if what you need is the ADT surface itself, its ancestors are entered here too and one of them may already be in your stack.

A system that reports itself productive, or whose role the probe cannot prove non-productive, is write-locked with no override, so changing code in production is not something this does. The permission ladder constrains the package, object name and transport request the server itself passes on a write, and is not a sandbox around ABAP it executes: `abap_run`, `abap_test` and the opt-in `core.eval` run under the connected technical user's SAP authorisations, which is where the boundary actually sits. Data preview, dump variable contents and driving a transaction by batch input stay off in every mode, `admin` included, until each is named explicitly.

Classic BOPF only: business objects of the ABAP Programming Model for SAP Fiori are not handled, and on [the BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment) or S/4HANA Public Cloud classic BOPF enhancements do not exist. It is version 0.1.0, verified on S/4HANA 2025 (SAP_BASIS 816) on-premise only, and [arc-1](artifact:arc-mcp-arc-1) still marks the plugin API it is built on as experimental. ARC-1 loads no extensions on its multi-target routes and offers none of these tools in its `hyperfocused` tool mode.

Its README says it plainly and so does this entry: this is not a simulation, every tool call reaches a live BW system, and write operations produce real changes. BW modelling objects are the definition of a warehouse — the blast radius of a wrong one is every report built on it.

Not for S/4HANA Public Cloud or [the BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment), where the README states there is no `SUBMIT`, NAST or SOAP-RFC; the floor elsewhere is SAP_BASIS 7.50, the `/sap/bc/soap/rfc` service active, and an SAP user with `S_RFC` on the kit's function group as well as the authorizations for the reports and the spool. Print output is NAST messages only, so S/4 Output Management through BRF+ or APOC is outside it, and editing covers SmartForms alone, with Adobe Forms and SAPscript previewable but not editable. A report that opens a popup, calls a screen or is a dialog transaction cannot be run at all.

Freestyle SQL and `abap_run` mean an agent can read data and execute code, which is well past reading source. Neither is something to grant on a system where the distinction between development tooling and business data matters.

Development and sandbox systems only: the README warns against pointing it at production. Transport release is never executed, since the tool exists to show the policy stopping it, and separation of duties is checked against the `identity.approvers` list in the policy file rather than against SAP authorisations, so it holds as far as that file does and no further. The write path has been tested with ABAP classes and other object types may need adjustments, there is deliberately no tool that creates or deletes an object, and one server instance serves one SAP system.

Every tool its README lists reads — Get and Search, nothing that writes. Locking, editing, activation and transports are the other server, [mcp-abap-abap-adt-api](artifact:mario-andreschak-mcp-abap-adt-api), and mixing the two is how you end up with two MCP servers pointed at one system.

Real SAP calls need the proprietary [SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK](external:sap-nw-rfc-sdk) and the `pyrfc==3.3.1` release the README calls archived and yanked, on Python 3.11, so without those only the demo backend answers. Not over HTTP as it stands: credentials are read from the environment for stdio, and the README says not to expose the server over HTTP without implementing the MCP authorization specification and deployment-level rate limiting. Multi-tenant auth and RBAC beyond the one server-wide policy, rate limiting, metrics and tracing, and deployment packaging are listed as not built. The result limits protect the client and not the system, since the README states they cannot reduce work already performed inside SAP, and the MCP tool annotations that describe read and write risk are advisory metadata rather than an authorisation boundary, so the service account's `S_RFC` and table authorisations are still what decides.

Reach is the reason to use it and the reason to be careful: reading cluster tables and spool output goes well past what a development tool is normally pointed at. Decide what an agent may reach before granting it, not after.

A system that reports itself productive, or whose role the probe cannot prove non-productive, is write-locked with no override, so changing code in production is not something this does. The permission ladder constrains the package, object name and transport request the server itself passes on a write, and is not a sandbox around ABAP it executes: `abap_run`, `abap_test` and the opt-in `core.eval` run under the connected technical user's SAP authorisations, which is where the boundary actually sits. Data preview, dump variable contents and driving a transaction by batch input stay off in every mode, `admin` included, until each is named explicitly.

Real SAP calls need the proprietary [SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK](external:sap-nw-rfc-sdk) and the `pyrfc==3.3.1` release the README calls archived and yanked, on Python 3.11, so without those only the demo backend answers. Not over HTTP as it stands: credentials are read from the environment for stdio, and the README says not to expose the server over HTTP without implementing the MCP authorization specification and deployment-level rate limiting. Multi-tenant auth and RBAC beyond the one server-wide policy, rate limiting, metrics and tracing, and deployment packaging are listed as not built. The result limits protect the client and not the system, since the README states they cannot reduce work already performed inside SAP, and the MCP tool annotations that describe read and write risk are advisory metadata rather than an authorisation boundary, so the service account's `S_RFC` and table authorisations are still what decides.

On ECC the S/4HANA `API_*` services that the three convenience readers default to do not exist, so each one has to be pointed at a Z service of your own or replaced by the RFC tools. `read_table` inherits `RFC_READ_TABLE`'s 512-byte row, so a wide table needs an explicit field list and some fields cannot be selected at all, and the bridge starts a Node process and a fresh logon per call, with no pooling. The audit log is one line per call that includes the call arguments, so every filter and WHERE clause sent to SAP is written to a file that then has to be handled as sensitive.

Every skill that touches ABAP needs [arc-1](artifact:arc-mcp-arc-1) itself connected to a real system; nothing else is universal. `modernize-ui5-app` and `convert-ui5-to-fiori-elements` specifically need [the UI5 MCP server](artifact:ui5-mcp-server) for TypeScript conversion guidance and the linter, `convert-ui5-to-fiori-elements` also needs [the Fiori MCP server](artifact:sap-ux-fiori-mcp-server) for its LROP scaffold, and `modernize-ui5-app` needs a browser MCP (Claude in Chrome or Claude's own Preview) for its final render-verification step, since an HTTP 200 alone does not catch a blank page. A skill file alone, without the servers a given skill needs, has nothing to act on.

Not for S/4HANA Public Cloud or [the BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment), where the README states there is no `SUBMIT`, NAST or SOAP-RFC; the floor elsewhere is SAP_BASIS 7.50, the `/sap/bc/soap/rfc` service active, and an SAP user with `S_RFC` on the kit's function group as well as the authorizations for the reports and the spool. Print output is NAST messages only, so S/4 Output Management through BRF+ or APOC is outside it, and editing covers SmartForms alone, with Adobe Forms and SAPscript previewable but not editable. A report that opens a popup, calls a screen or is a dialog transaction cannot be run at all.

The commands it writes stop production systems, delete data and import transports, which is why execution is deliberately somebody else's decision. BTP and cloud operations are explicitly out of scope and planned as a separate plugin.

Its README calls it early-stage — the core workflows run end-to-end against real systems and packaging, documentation and polish are stated as still evolving. A Rust binary rather than an npm install, so the platform build matters.

It is a plugin for one server — its own — so it is a stack rather than a component. And the guard is only as good as the profile labels: a production system registered as `DEV` is a production system with the safety off.

Archived The declared repository is archived.

Functional boundary With one SAP system the README says to point the client at that arc-1 directly. Version 1 exchanges tokens within a single subaccount, so backends spread across subaccounts are out; it keeps its session map in memory, so more than one instance needs sticky sessions or a shared store. It routes deterministically and runs no model, which is a different thing from an assistant that reasons across systems. The `/all` endpoint drops the per-connection isolation, and the maintainer's answer to that is a PROD backend set read-only at the SAP end rather than a tool surface that hides the writes.

Its README says it plainly and so does this entry: this is not a simulation, every tool call reaches a live BW system, and write operations produce real changes. BW modelling objects are the definition of a warehouse — the blast radius of a wrong one is every report built on it.

Development and sandbox systems only: the README warns against pointing it at production. Transport release is never executed, since the tool exists to show the policy stopping it, and separation of duties is checked against the `identity.approvers` list in the policy file rather than against SAP authorisations, so it holds as far as that file does and no further. The write path has been tested with ABAP classes and other object types may need adjustments, there is deliberately no tool that creates or deletes an object, and one server instance serves one SAP system.

Real SAP calls need the proprietary [SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK](external:sap-nw-rfc-sdk) and the `pyrfc==3.3.1` release the README calls archived and yanked, on Python 3.11, so without those only the demo backend answers. Not over HTTP as it stands: credentials are read from the environment for stdio, and the README says not to expose the server over HTTP without implementing the MCP authorization specification and deployment-level rate limiting. Multi-tenant auth and RBAC beyond the one server-wide policy, rate limiting, metrics and tracing, and deployment packaging are listed as not built. The result limits protect the client and not the system, since the README states they cannot reduce work already performed inside SAP, and the MCP tool annotations that describe read and write risk are advisory metadata rather than an authorisation boundary, so the service account's `S_RFC` and table authorisations are still what decides.

It is a plugin for one server — its own — so it is a stack rather than a component. And the guard is only as good as the profile labels: a production system registered as `DEV` is a production system with the safety off.

Not for anything important, which is the maintainer's own instruction: the README's Warning section calls it stupid to write your own encryption or PGP library, says abapPGP will most certainly contain severe bugs, and points instead at established PGP software such as [OpenPGP](http://openpgp.org/). Signing is the only scope it states.

Not a way to run existing reports unchanged: a report is rewritten as a class, and `CALL SCREEN`, dynpro modules, batch input, `SUBMIT` and native SQL are refused by the converter rather than mapped. Not an SAP GUI in the browser either: the programming model is classic and the screens are UI5, and the README points at abap2UI5-addons/sapgui for SE16N or SM37. Output has gaps the README names — ALV cells show dates and times as the model carries them rather than in the user's format, print is a text file because ABAP Cloud has no spool, and value tables for F4 are read on premise only.

It answers about the object catalogue, not about your code: nothing here reads your system, so it will tell you a table is not released and not that you used it. That check is ATC's, and this is what makes ATC's answer actionable.

Anything below SAP S/4HANA 2023 FPS03 (ABAP 7.58), and any system not running the ABAP Cloud development model: those two are the prerequisites the README names, and it states that the framework targets ABAP Cloud exclusively.

Only on SAP S/4HANA 2023 and 2025, on premise or private cloud: [SAP S/4HANA Cloud, Public Edition](external:sap-s4hana-cloud-public-edition) and the [SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment) are listed as coming soon, and a 2023 system has to leave out `ZABAP_PRC_EVENTS_SE_2025`, whose event-based side effects rely on APIs released with S/4HANA 2025. Not for a system that already carries a copy, because object names are global and two versions cannot live side by side, and not for a productive system by way of the `ZABAP_PRC_DEMO*` packages, which the README states are not intended for one and whose init classes delete and rebuild their own tables on every run. While the major version is 0 the public API is not stable: minor bumps carry breaking changes with no deprecation period, so productive use means pinning a tag and reading the CHANGELOG before every upgrade.

Not on ABAP Cloud: the system tables and the classic Workbench APIs the screens use are not released for the ABAP Cloud language version, and there is no 7.02 version below the 7.50 floor either. Not where the full original function is needed, since only the listed transactions exist and about 300 buttons and fields are shown disabled. The authorization checks are rebuilt rather than the originals, which is why the README asks that the screens be tried with a restricted user on a sandbox before the ICF service is opened to more people.

Not as it stands on a system past development: it reads the contents of any table the user names without an authorisation check of its own, so access is bounded only by whatever restrictions exist on the underlying handler or service. The README asks for your own checks first, naming `AUTHORITY-CHECK` on `S_TABU_DIS`/`S_TABU_NAM`, and for a restriction on who may run the app. There is no 7.02 downport either, because the selection-screen dependency has no `702` branch.

It runs whatever SQL a user types without an authorisation check of its own, and the native path additionally uses ADBC, which bypasses ABAP authorisations and client separation; the README asks anyone running it beyond a development system to add authorisation checks and restrict who may start the app. The native console needs Standard ABAP, so on ABAP Cloud only the Open SQL console is available.

Not below SAP_BASIS 7.40 SP08, and not on [SAP S/4HANA Cloud Public Edition](external:sap-s4hana-cloud-public-edition) or [the SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment), where the classic transport check, the report and job calls and the cluster table `INDX` it rests on do not exist and the maintainer names gCTS as the answer instead. Only on a development system where every developer is trusted: each developer's GitHub token is kept in a cluster table encrypted with a key held in the same table, so anybody who can run ABAP on that system can read both, and the separation between author and reviewer holds only as far as that trust does. Not where the gate has to be unconditional — `#NOREVIEW` in a request's short text skips the check for that request, `ZTR_DISABLED` switches it off for a system, a check that cannot reach GitHub lets the release go on, and nothing checks who writes the marker.

A system that reports itself productive, or whose role the probe cannot prove non-productive, is write-locked with no override, so changing code in production is not something this does. The permission ladder constrains the package, object name and transport request the server itself passes on a write, and is not a sandbox around ABAP it executes: `abap_run`, `abap_test` and the opt-in `core.eval` run under the connected technical user's SAP authorisations, which is where the boundary actually sits. Data preview, dump variable contents and driving a transaction by batch input stay off in every mode, `admin` included, until each is named explicitly.

Driving the GUI reaches whatever a user can reach, which is business data and not a development surface. Decide what an agent may do in a session before granting one, not after. Windows only. The HTTP transport is meant for team use but binds to localhost, and unattended multi-user operation is listed as not yet available — a limitation and also the safer default.

Not a tool a developer runs: it is a library to build one with, and it ships no editor, command line or interface of its own. Its sample connects with a plain HTTP URL, a user and a password, so a system that does not expose the adt ICF service that way is out of reach.

Not on ABAP Cloud: the system tables and the classic Workbench APIs the screens use are not released for the ABAP Cloud language version, and there is no 7.02 version below the 7.50 floor either. Not where the full original function is needed, since only the listed transactions exist and about 300 buttons and fields are shown disabled. The authorization checks are rebuilt rather than the originals, which is why the README asks that the screens be tried with a restricted user on a sandbox before the ICF service is opened to more people.

Windows only, with PowerShell 7 (`pwsh`) installed; the run needs access to `download.eclipse.org`, `tools.hana.ondemand.com`, `eclipse.devepos.com` and the update site of every plugin selected, from the machine it installs on. A plugin outside the catalog is installed only after someone adds its update site and feature group id to `catalog.json`.

Not a system to run a business application on: there is no business application in it, and what it implements of the language, the dictionary and Gateway is a stated subset of each. It is a clean-room reimplementation of the `/IWBEP/` interfaces that bundles no SAP source and no standard DDIC, so a service that reads standard objects has nothing to read, and `ANORMALIES.md` records every place the runtime differs from SAP before any workaround is written.

Not on ABAP Cloud: the system tables and the classic Workbench APIs the screens use are not released for the ABAP Cloud language version, and there is no 7.02 version below the 7.50 floor either. Not where the full original function is needed, since only the listed transactions exist and about 300 buttons and fields are shown disabled. The authorization checks are rebuilt rather than the originals, which is why the README asks that the screens be tried with a restricted user on a sandbox before the ICF service is opened to more people.

Not below SAP_BASIS 7.40 SP08, and not on [SAP S/4HANA Cloud Public Edition](external:sap-s4hana-cloud-public-edition) or [the SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment), where the classic transport check, the report and job calls and the cluster table `INDX` it rests on do not exist and the maintainer names gCTS as the answer instead. Only on a development system where every developer is trusted: each developer's GitHub token is kept in a cluster table encrypted with a key held in the same table, so anybody who can run ABAP on that system can read both, and the separation between author and reviewer holds only as far as that trust does. Not where the gate has to be unconditional — `#NOREVIEW` in a request's short text skips the check for that request, `ZTR_DISABLED` switches it off for a system, a check that cannot reach GitHub lets the release go on, and nothing checks who writes the marker.

Not a system to run a business application on: there is no business application in it, and what it implements of the language, the dictionary and Gateway is a stated subset of each. It is a clean-room reimplementation of the `/IWBEP/` interfaces that bundles no SAP source and no standard DDIC, so a service that reads standard objects has nothing to read, and `ANORMALIES.md` records every place the runtime differs from SAP before any workaround is written.

LISA does the translation step only: it does not discover objects or manage transports, and its README pairs it with [an ADT MCP server](artifact:sap-adt-mcp-server) for those. Every write needs a transport request, and which object types it can write differs between public cloud or [the SAP BTP ABAP environment](artifact:btp-abap-environment) and on-premise or private cloud, and by release. Running it locally is meant for development and testing, not production.

Not a way to run existing reports unchanged: a report is rewritten as a class, and `CALL SCREEN`, dynpro modules, batch input, `SUBMIT` and native SQL are refused by the converter rather than mapped. Not an SAP GUI in the browser either: the programming model is classic and the screens are UI5, and the README points at abap2UI5-addons/sapgui for SE16N or SM37. Output has gaps the README names — ALV cells show dates and times as the model carries them rather than in the user's format, print is a text file because ABAP Cloud has no spool, and value tables for F4 are read on premise only.

The layout is rendered into an [abap2UI5](artifact:abap2ui5-abap2ui5) view and its events are passed on from the app's `main` method, so there is nothing here for a UI outside an abap2UI5 app. Shared layouts stay denied until a class implementing `z2ui5_if_layo_auth` exists in the system, so an installation whose key users are to maintain shared layouts has that class and its authorization object to write first.

The `PARAMETERS`-style selection screen with event blocks is not here: `z2ui5_cl_sel_screen` and `z2ui5_cl_sel_screen_sel` are a skeleton whose methods are still empty, and the README points at [abap-cloud-gui](artifact:abap2ui5-addons-abap-cloud-gui) for a full report-style screen.