Lists tables, data sets, and views in a specified SAS library, returning row and column details known to SAS so users can inspect available data.
Tables (data sets and views) in one SAS library, with rows and columns where SAS knows them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library | Yes | ||
| connection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Input schema / properties / connectionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Connection"
+}v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some context by saying the tool covers data sets and views and rows/columns 'where SAS knows them,' but it does not explain permissions, error behavior, or what happens when metadata is unavailable.
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 definition is a single concise sentence with no redundant filler. It is reasonably front-loaded, although the phrase 'where SAS knows them' is slightly vague and the sentence lacks an explicit action verb.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important context unaddressed. It does not clarify the optional connection parameter, output shape, or how this listing relates to adjacent schema-exploration tools.
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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implies the required 'library' parameter via 'one SAS library' and says nothing about the optional 'connection' parameter, leaving meaningful gaps in parameter semantics.
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 identifies the resource clearly: tables, including data sets and views, within one SAS library. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it omits an explicit verb such as 'list' and does not distinguish itself by name from siblings like sas_libraries, sas_columns, or cas_tables.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sas_libraries, sas_columns, cas_tables, or sas_query. The library scope implies a basic use case, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.