submit_batch_jobRun SAS programs asynchronously by submitting code to the Job Execution service for later retrieval of logs and output.
Submit a SAS job for asynchronous execution via the Job Execution service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_name | No | Optional descriptive name for the job. | |
| sas_code | Yes | SAS code to execute. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is destructive, is not idempotent, and has open-world effects. The description adds the asynchronous execution detail, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as what persists, how to track the job, or side effects beyond the annotation summary.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the verb, resource, execution mode, and service context with no wasted words. It is concise without losing essential meaning.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety semantics, the description is sufficient for invocation. It clearly communicates asynchronous execution, which is the main behavioral context an agent needs to properly use the tool.
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 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning for the 'sas_code' or 'job_name' parameters beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 a specific verb ('submit'), a resource ('SAS job'), and a key characteristic ('asynchronous execution') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_sas_code. Despite not naming a sibling, the async qualifier makes the tool's intent unambiguous.
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 clearly implies this is for asynchronous execution, which gives an agent context for when to choose it over synchronous alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as execute_sas_code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.