spss-studio-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Spss Run Syntax

spss_run_syntax

Execute IBM SPSS syntax commands and return output as Markdown. Optionally prepend GET FILE via data_file, save .spv/.sps files; requires SPSS installed.

Instructions

Execute arbitrary SPSS syntax commands and return the output as Markdown. Optionally specify a data_file to automatically prepend GET FILE. By default, this also persists .spv (SPSS viewer) and .sps (executed syntax) files. Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "syntax": "<syntax>"
    },
    "name": "spss_run_syntax"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`syntax`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`data_file`	No
`select_if`	No
`filter_variable`	No
`save_syntax_file`	No
`save_viewer_output`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: default persistence of .spv and .sps files (a side effect), the GET FILE prepend behavior, and the hard requirement that IBM SPSS Statistics be installed. It omits what dry_run actually does and how errors/failures are surfaced, which matters for an arbitrary-code execution tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then optional behavior, then prerequisites. No filler. Slightly more could be trimmed only by cutting the useful GET FILE detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a powerful code-execution tool, the unexplained dry_run and filtering parameters leave the definition short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains syntax, data_file (prepends GET FILE) and the two save_* defaults, covering roughly half the surface, but leaves dry_run, select_if, and filter_variable completely undefined in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (arbitrary SPSS syntax) and clarifies the return format (Markdown). The word 'arbitrary' implicitly distinguishes it from the many structured sibling tools like spss_frequencies or spss_regression, but the description never explicitly says 'use this for raw syntax instead of the convenience wrappers.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against alternatives. Given 38 siblings including spss_validate_syntax and dozens of higher-level method wrappers, the description should tell the agent when raw execution is the right choice, but it does not.

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

Deploy Server