Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SAS MCP Server

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Update Business Rule

update_business_rule
DestructiveIdempotent

Updates an existing rule within a SAS Business Rules rule set, including its conditions, actions, name, and rule-fired tracking settings.

Instructions

Update an existing rule inside a SAS Business Rules rule set.

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": {
      "ruleset_id": "<ruleset_id>",
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "conditional": "<conditional>",
      "rule_fired_tracking_enabled": "<rule_fired_tracking_enabled>",
      "conditions": "<conditions>",
      "actions": "<actions>"
    },
    "name": "update_business_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRule name (max 30 chars).
actionsYesList of assignment/return/lookupValue actions to perform when matched.
rule_idYesThe specific rule UUID to update.
conditionsYesList of conditions (multiple conditions AND together), including ``lookup`` conditions (see create_business_rule).
ruleset_idYesThe parent rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both).
conditionalYes"if" starts a new independent rule chain, "elseif" continues the previous rule's chain, "or" ORs into it.
rule_fired_tracking_enabledYesWhether to record when this rule fires.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.19.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / actions / description
      Previous value: -"List of assignment/return actions to perform when matched."New value: +"List of assignment/return/lookupValue actions to perform when matched."
    • changedInput schema / properties / conditions / description
      Previous value: -"List of conditions (multiple conditions AND together)."New value: +"List of conditions (multiple conditions AND together),\nincluding ``lookup`` conditions (see create_business_rule)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / ruleset_id / description
      Previous value: -"The parent rule set UUID."New value: +"The parent rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both)."
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says the call replaces the whole rule definition (all 7 params are required), nor mentions locking, revision creation, or validation side effects that matter for a destructive update.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing-behavior gaps noted elsewhere.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, 7-required-parameter update inside a locked-revision workflow, the description omits the full-replacement semantics and the locking/prerequisite step. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the operational context an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter (rule UUID, ruleset UUID not name, conditional semantics, condition/action lists). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Update an existing rule inside a SAS Business Rules rule set'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from create_business_rule and update_business_ruleset by resource granularity. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this over update_business_ruleset or create_business_rule, and no prerequisites are mentioned — notably that a rule set revision likely must be locked first (siblings lock_business_ruleset_revision / lock_decisioning_asset_revision exist). The agent must infer all of this.

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