Retrieve the settings and sign-in status for a SAS Viya connection, defaulting to the active one, to verify authentication and configuration.
Settings and sign-in status 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that it reports settings and sign-in status and defaults to the active connection, which is useful context, but it does not disclose what 'settings' includes or any failure conditions. Given the annotation coverage, this is an adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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, well-formed sentence with no filler. The default behavior is placed in parentheses, keeping the core purpose front-loaded.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and default behavior. It leaves gaps in usage context and sibling differentiation, but those are not critical for a basic state-inspection tool.
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 single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially does by stating '(default: the active one)', clarifying which connection is queried if 'name' is omitted, but it does not explain the expected string format or naming conventions.
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 names the resource (a SAS Viya connection) and what it reports (settings and sign-in status), making the tool's retrieval purpose clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like sas_connections_state or connections_state, so an agent could still hesitate between them.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The parenthetical only explains the default parameter behavior, not when to select this tool over alternatives such as sas_viya_sign_in or sas_viya_test.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.