Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SAS MCP Server

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Decisioning Asset Code

get_decisioning_asset_code
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the DS2 code SAS Viya generates for a rule set, decision, segmentation tree, or code file source, optionally from a specific revision.

Instructions

The DS2 code Viya generates for a rule set, decision or segmentation tree, or a code file's source.

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": "get_decisioning_asset_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_idYesThe ID.
asset_typeYesrule_set, decision, segmentation_tree or code_file.
revision_idNoA revision instead of the current state.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.19.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful nuance beyond them: the DS2 code is *generated* for rule sets/decisions/trees, whereas for code_file it is the file's own source. It says nothing about whether generation happens on demand, can fail, or what a revision lookup changes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key fact (what code is returned) comes first and every clause contributes.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing for correct invocation is routing context: how this differs from get_decisioning_asset/get_decision_flow_code and how revision_id should be used.

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 asset_type enum already enumerates the four values, so restating them in the description adds nothing. The revision_id parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, leaving the 'revision instead of current state' semantics entirely to the schema.

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 names the concrete resource being returned (the DS2 code Viya generates) and enumerates the source asset kinds, so an agent knows this fetches generated code rather than asset metadata. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, and it never names the close sibling get_decisioning_asset (which returns metadata) or get_decision_flow_code, so differentiation is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_decisioning_asset, get_decision_flow_code, or list_decisioning_asset_revisions, and no guidance on when to pass revision_id. Usage has to be inferred from the one-line resource description alone.

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