Skip to main content
Glama
SAS MCP Server

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware

List Model Repositories

list_model_repositories
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists SAS Model Manager repositories where model projects live and identifies the default repository used for new projects and registrations when none is named.

Instructions

List the SAS Model Manager repositories (where model projects live).

default marks the one new projects and registrations use when a call names none (the deployment's MCP_DEFAULT_MODEL_REPOSITORY).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_model_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.19.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: which repository is used implicitly when a call names none, tied to MCP_DEFAULT_MODEL_REPOSITORY. Return shape is handled by the output schema.

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?

Two short sentences with the identity statement front-loaded and the 'default' semantics second; nothing is filler. The second sentence is somewhat densely compressed ('when a call names none') but still parses.

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?

For a parameterless read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: what a repository is in this domain and the meaning of the 'default' marker. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No misleading parameter guidance is present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the SAS Model Manager repositories') and adds a scope gloss ('where model projects live') that separates it from the model-project and model-version listers in the sibling set. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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: an agent can infer this is a discovery step for obtaining repository names before project/registration calls, and the 'default' note hints at downstream defaults. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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