get_business_rulesetFetch a specific SAS Business Rules rule set by UUID. Retrieve details when you have the ID from list_business_rulesets.
Fetch a single SAS Business Rules rule set by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleset_id | Yes | The rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / ruleset_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The rule set UUID."New value: +"The rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both)."v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond 'single' and 'by ID,' but it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating what the tool does.
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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent fetch operation with an output schema present and strong annotations, the description plus schema is fully sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter and clearly explains that ruleset_id is a UUID, not a name, and that list_business_rulesets returns both. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a single SAS Business Rules rule set') and the retrieval criterion ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from list_business_rulesets (which lists many) and from get_business_rule (which fetches a rule, not a rule set).
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?
The description implies the tool is used when you already have the rule set UUID and want a single rule set, and the parameter description notes that list_business_rulesets returns both names and UUIDs. However, the main description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_business_rule or list_business_rulesets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.