SAS MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Lock Business Ruleset Revision

lock_business_ruleset_revision

Create an immutable snapshot of a rule set so decision flows can reference a stable version. Lock a revision after editing rules to ensure decisions use updated content.

Instructions

Lock the current state of a rule set as an immutable revision.

Decision steps reference a specific rule set revision (versionId), not the live working copy, so a revision must exist before wiring a rule set into a decision flow — call again after editing rules if a decision needs to pick up the changes.

The revision-creation request replaces the rule set's full content from the body sent, so this fetches the rule set with its rules included (application/vnd.sas.business.rule.set.integral+json) and resends them — omitting them would wipe the live rule set's rules, not just the new revision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ruleset_id`	Yes	The rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both).
`revision_type`	No	"minor" for iterative changes, "major" for a significant/approved milestone (default "minor").	minor

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0Aug 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ruleset_id / description

Previous value: -"The rule set UUID."New value: +"The rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both)."

Addedv1.5.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the revision-creation request replaces the full rule set content, the tool fetches the integral representation and resends it, and omitting rules would wipe live rules. It also explains why decision steps use versionId rather than the live copy. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

The description is organized into three focused paragraphs, each earning its place: definition, workflow timing, and a critical behavioral warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers the prerequisite (revision must exist), when to call again, the full-content replacement behavior, and the risk of wiping live rules. Since an output schema exists, return-value details aren't needed in the description, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents ruleset_id as the UUID (not the name) and revision_type as minor/major. The description doesn't add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lock the current state of a rule set as an immutable revision.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and object, and distinguishes it from the sibling lock_decision_flow_revision by focusing on rule set revisions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides strong contextual guidance: a revision must exist before wiring a rule set into a decision flow, and users should call again after editing rules to pick up changes. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the workflow context is clear.

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

Deploy Server