Activate a saved SAS Viya connection so the Workspace's SAS views and new notebook kernels use it without restarting existing sessions.
Make a saved SAS Viya connection the active one: the Workspace's SAS views and new notebook kernels use it. Each connection has its own SAS sessions, so nothing is restarted (SQL Editor tabs pinned to the other connection keep theirs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight by disclosing that nothing is restarted, that each connection holds its own SAS sessions, and that SQL Editor tabs pinned to the other connection keep theirs. That is exactly the non-obvious operational impact an agent needs before mutating the active-connection state. It stops short of covering failure modes (unknown name, unauthenticated connection).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, effect first, side effects second, with zero filler. The parenthetical about SQL Editor tabs is dense but carries genuinely non-obvious information, so it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter state-mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers what changes, what does not change, and what existing work is preserved. Missing only edge-case behavior such as an invalid name or a disconnected connection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does so weakly: 'a saved SAS Viya connection' implies the name identifies a saved connection, but nothing confirms whether it is the display name, an ID, or whether it is case-sensitive or must match exactly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (make a saved SAS Viya connection the active one) and spells out the downstream effect on the Workspace's SAS views and new notebook kernels. The 'SAS Viya' qualifier implicitly separates it from the plain connection_activate sibling, but that distinction is never made explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want to switch which connection drives SAS views and new kernels. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative connection_activate, and no statement of prerequisites such as the connection already being saved or authenticated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.