Skip to main content
Glama

generate_synthetic_data

Generate synthetic data as a CAS table from your column specification. Create mock datasets with configurable columns, distributions, and row counts.

Instructions

Generate a synthetic CAS table from a column specification.

Use this to create realistic mock data on request (e.g. a driver-risk dataset for a demo). Recommended flow: first PROPOSE the column schema to the user in chat and get their agreement, THEN call this tool. The rows are generated in SAS and saved to CAS as a promoted (global) table, immediately usable by the data, charting, AutoML, and scoring tools.

If a table with the requested name already exists, a numbered variant is created automatically (no error). Very large requests are capped to a safe maximum rather than failing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNoRandom seed for reproducibility (default 12345).
n_rowsNoNumber of rows to generate (default 1000).
columnsYesList of column specs. Each is an object with ``name`` and ``type`` (one of: id, int, float, category, bool, date) plus type-specific options: - id: sequential zero-padded identifier - int / float: ``min``, ``max``; or ``dist`` "normal" (``mean``, ``std``) or "poisson" (``lambda``); float also accepts ``decimals`` - category: ``levels`` (list) and optional ``weights`` (list) - bool: ``p_true`` (probability of 1; default 0.5) - date: ``start`` and ``end`` as YYYY-MM-DD
server_idNoCAS server (default cas-shared-default).cas-shared-default
table_nameYesName for the new CAS table.
caslib_nameNoTarget caslib (default Public).Public

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that rows are generated in SAS and saved as a promoted global CAS table, that duplicate table names result in automatic numbered variants (no error), and that very large requests are capped rather than failing. These are non-obvious, useful behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then behavioral details in the second paragraph. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema information or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params including a nested column spec) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the use case, recommended workflow, table promotion behavior, naming conflict handling, size limits, and integration with other tools, making it fully contextual.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including column type-specific options, defaults, and format examples. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema gives, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a synthetic CAS table from a column specification.' This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_data, execute_sas_code, or list_castables by focusing on synthetic data generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('to create realistic mock data on request') and provides a recommended workflow (propose schema first, then call). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/raedaldweik/SAS_MCP_Server_personal'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server