Execute a single user-confirmed SAS statement in the SQL Editor, including writes outside WORK or CASUSER libraries.
Run one SAS statement the user confirmed in the SQL Editor (writes outside WORK / CASUSER included).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| tab | No | ||
| file | No | ||
| tab_id | No | ||
| library | No | ||
| options | No | ||
| language | Yes | ||
| max_rows | No | ||
| pushdown | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value by disclosing the scope of that destruction: writes are not limited to the temporary WORK/CASUSER libraries. It also constrains the call to a single statement. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any rate or reversibility notes.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive scope is parenthetically attached rather than diluting the main clause. Nothing wasteful.
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 9-parameter destructive execution tool with no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotation beyond hints, the description is far too thin. It neither documents the optional targeting parameters nor describes what is returned or how results are surfaced.
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?
With 9 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but explains almost nothing. 'One SAS statement' loosely maps to the sql parameter and 'SAS' to language, but tab, file, tab_id, library, options, max_rows, and pushdown are entirely unexplained.
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+resource ('Run one SAS statement') and scopes it to a statement 'the user confirmed in the SQL Editor'. Clear purpose, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like sas_query, sql_editor_execute, or run_sql, which all appear to execute SQL/SAS.
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?
The phrase 'the user confirmed in the SQL Editor' implies a usage constraint (only run already-confirmed statements, one at a time), which is meaningful. However, it never states when to prefer sas_execute over sas_query or sql_editor_execute, nor any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.