Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SAS MCP Server

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Delete Decisioning Asset

delete_decisioning_asset
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a SAS Viya decisioning asset and all its revisions while blocking deletion when dependencies are still in use, helping prevent invalid rules and broken references.

Instructions

Permanently delete a piece of decisioning content and all its revisions.

Something still in use — a rule set or code file a decision references, a category that still holds functions — is refused by Viya. A lookup table that rule sets use is refused here, naming them: Viya would delete it and leave those rules invalid.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asset_type": "<asset_type>",
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_decisioning_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_idYesThe ID to delete.
asset_typeYesrule_set, decision, segmentation_tree, code_file, value_list, lookup_table, custom_function or function_category.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.19.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description discloses that all revisions are destroyed, that referential-integrity checks cause Viya to refuse the delete in several distinct cases, and that a lookup table referenced by rule sets is rejected with the blocking rule sets named. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before attempting a destructive call.

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 destructive scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the refusal semantics follow. The final sentence is slightly convoluted ('refused here, naming them: Viya would delete it and leave those rules invalid') but every sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema available and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately covers destruction scope and refusal conditions. The remaining gap is how to obtain a valid asset_id and how this differs from the sibling delete tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the asset_type enum enumerates every valid value, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-discovery guidance beyond what the schema already documents, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource — permanently delete a piece of decisioning content and all its revisions — which tells an agent exactly what is removed. It does not, however, distinguish this from near-name siblings such as delete_business_ruleset, delete_business_rule, or delete_decision_flow, so the boundary between 'decisioning asset' deletion and those targeted deletes must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: you call this to permanently remove a decisioning asset. The description is rich on when the call will be refused (in-use rule sets, code files, non-empty function categories, referenced lookup tables) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the more specific delete_* siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools