Sign out of a SAS Viya connection to clear its stored sign-in; targets the active connection by default and accepts an optional connection name.
Forget the sign-in of a SAS Viya connection (default: the active one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Input schema / properties / nameAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Name"
+}v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations give only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description should carry the behavioral load. It does not say whether stored credentials are removed permanently, whether the session is terminated, or whether other saved connections are affected. The default-target note is the sole added behavior detail.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with the default behavior appended. Nothing is redundant, though the phrasing 'Forget the sign-in' is slightly indirect where 'sign out' would be crisper.
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 optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is roughly adequate: it names the target and its default. It still leaves the post-condition (session ended? credentials wiped?) unstated, which an agent about to revoke an authentication state would benefit from knowing.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'name' parameter has only a null default with no description. The parenthetical 'default: the active one' meaningfully explains what happens when name is omitted, which is real added value, but it does not say how to identify a named connection or what a valid value looks like.
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 verb-plus-resource is specific ('Forget the sign-in of a SAS Viya connection'), and the sibling sas_viya_sign_in makes the inverse operation obvious. It is clear what the tool does, though 'Forget' is softer than the conventional 'sign out' phrasing.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as connection_delete or sas_connection_delete. The only contextual clue is the parenthetical default, which is really parameter behavior, not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.