Update or create the active SAS Viya connection with provided settings while preserving existing values; empty addresses do not overwrite saved ones.
Update the active SAS Viya connection with the settings given (others stay; an empty address never blanks the saved one). Without any connection, an address creates one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: partial updates preserve existing settings, empty address does not blank the saved value, and creation behavior when no connection exists. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover authentication requirements or failure modes.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds two important behavioral clauses. It is concise and every part earns its place, though slightly dense.
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?
Given annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema, the description provides some necessary context (merge behavior, creation). However, for a tool with a complex nested parameter and zero schema description coverage, it lacks sufficient detail about the settings object's structure and expected fields, leaving the agent under-informed about how to construct valid input.
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?
The tool has one required parameter 'settings' with 0% schema description coverage and a nested object schema with additionalProperties=true. The description mentions 'the settings given' and references 'an empty address', implying the settings object may contain an address field, but it does not enumerate or describe any other possible fields. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: updating the active SAS Viya connection with given settings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like connection_save and sas_connection_save by targeting the SAS Viya connection specifically and describing the update/merge behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other save-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity.
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 description implies usage context (update active connection, create if none), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like connection_save or sas_connection_save. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.