Skip to main content
Glama
sassoftware

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware

create_report

Create a SAS Visual Analytics report and get its ID for editing. Optionally build the full report in one atomic call, binding data and adding pages/objects, to avoid leftover empty reports.

Instructions

Create a Visual Analytics report and return its id for further edits.

Creates an empty report shell, or — if you pass operations — builds the whole report in one atomic call (bind data, add pages, add objects). Building at creation avoids leaving an empty report behind if a later edit fails. Returns {"status": "created", "id": ..., "name": ...} plus a created summary whose object names/labels are what follow-up placement and exports target; feed the id to apply_report_operations to keep editing. Note: VA prepends an empty default "Page 1" before any pages your operations add, so verify page-by-page with export_report (see the result's verify_hint) rather than a whole-report export.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesReport name (``resultReportName``). Must be unique in the folder unless ``on_conflict`` resolves it.
folderNoOptional target folder URI (``resultFolder``); omit for the caller's My Folder.
operationsNoOptional native operations array to apply at creation, in the same shape ``apply_report_operations`` takes. Call ``describe_report_objects`` for the operation and object formats.
on_conflictNoName-conflict policy — ``rename`` (default), ``abort``, or ``replace``.rename

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the atomic creation behavior, the return summary structure, that object names/labels are used for follow-up placement/exports, and the VA quirk of prepending an empty default 'Page 1.' It also mentions the verify_hint, which is not visible in the schema, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the basic creation action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat long but every sentence carries essential information. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then expands on behavior, return value, and a critical quirk, without fluff. The structure is logical, though a few phrases could be tightened without losing value.

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 (two creation modes, operational semantics, follow-up editing) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format, the 'created' summary, the default page behavior, and points to export_report for verification. The description fully compensates for the lack of annotations and leaves no major workflow question unanswered.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema covers all parameters at 100% with detailed descriptions (e.g., operations format, on_conflict policy). The description adds semantic depth by explaining that operations can 'bind data, add pages, add objects' and by clarifying the atomic build benefit. This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage, though the schema already does substantial work.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a Visual Analytics report and return its id for further edits.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the two creation modes (empty shell vs. building the whole report via operations) and referencing apply_report_operations for subsequent edits, which positions it uniquely among report tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage context: if you pass operations, it builds the whole report atomically, which 'avoids leaving an empty report behind if a later edit fails.' It directs the user to feed the returned id to apply_report_operations for further editing and recommends verifying page-by-page with export_report due to the prepended default 'Page 1.' This gives clear when-to-use and workflow guidance.

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/sassoftware/sas-mcp-server'

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