Fetch additional rows from a SAS run's result table starting at a given offset, waiting up to 15 seconds if the session is busy.
More rows of a SAS run's result (its result table in the SAS / CAS session), from offset. Works until the
same tab runs something else (its result table is then replaced). Waits up to 15 s for a busy session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the underlying result table can be replaced if the same tab runs something else, and a busy session may cause up to a 15-second wait. It does not explain end-of-results behavior or the returned row format.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the two most relevant behavioral constraints.
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?
It covers the key operational context for a paginated read tool, including offset continuation, result-table lifetime, and session wait time. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, it leaves gaps around run_id acquisition, limit semantics, and what happens when the result set is exhausted.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining all three parameters. It only clarifies offset as the starting point for retrieving more rows; run_id and limit are left undocumented, and the limit/default behavior is not described.
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?
The description states a specific retrieval action: paginating through more rows of a SAS run's result table. It clarifies the resource is the result table in the SAS/CAS session, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as sas_run_status or sas_query.
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 'More rows' implies this is a continuation/pagination call, and the description gives a clear validity condition: it works until the same tab runs something else. It also notes the session wait behavior. It stops short of explicitly naming when to use this versus sas_query or sas_run_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.