list_compute_contextsFind available SAS Viya compute contexts to run SAS code. Use filters and pagination to locate the desired execution environment.
List available compute contexts on the Viya environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| filter_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the environmental scope 'on the Viya environment' and the word 'available', but does not describe pagination, filtering behavior, or what state or metadata is included for each context.
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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it is quite thin and does not use the available space to explain parameters or usage context.
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?
With an output schema present and all parameters optional, a basic call with defaults is well-supported. However, the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, making it incomplete for filter usage or for selecting this tool among many sibling list tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about limit, start, or filter_name. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the agent receives no explicit guidance on valid values, default behavior, or filtering semantics from either the schema or the description.
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 states the specific action 'List' on the resource 'compute contexts' and scopes it to 'the Viya environment'. It is not a tautology and is clear enough to distinguish the tool from sibling tools targeting different resources like list_cas_servers or list_compute_libraries, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusion criteria, or scenarios where another list/compute tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer selection solely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.