SAS MCP Server

Official

by sassoftware

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Update Business Rule

update_business_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Modify an existing rule in a SAS Business Rules rule set by providing the rule UUID, parent rule set UUID, and updated conditions/actions to apply new decision logic.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Rule name (max 30 chars).
`actions`	Yes	List of assignment/return actions to perform when matched.
`rule_id`	Yes	The specific rule UUID to update.
`conditions`	Yes	List of conditions (multiple conditions AND together).
`ruleset_id`	Yes	The parent rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both).
`conditional`	Yes	"if" starts a new independent rule chain, "elseif" continues the previous rule's chain, "or" ORs into it.
`rule_fired_tracking_enabled`	Yes	Whether to record when this rule fires.

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

Addedv1.5.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already indicate this is destructive and not read-only, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not clarify that the update likely replaces the entire rule definition, whether the revision must be locked, or what the impact of the update is. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but no extra transparency is provided.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It effectively front-loads the core purpose and every word contributes to the meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema and output schema cover most parameter and return-value details, and the description correctly identifies the operation and domain. However, the description is terse and does not mention full-replacement behavior, required prerequisites, or locking considerations, leaving an adequate but incomplete picture for the agent.

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 provides useful parameter detail such as 'ruleset_id' being a UUID, not a name, and the semantics of the 'conditional' field. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('update'), a specific resource ('existing rule'), and a domain ('SAS Business Rules rule set'). This clearly communicates the tool's function and easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_business_rule, delete_business_rule, and get_business_rule.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when modifying an existing rule. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over creating, deleting, or fetching a rule, nor does it mention any preconditions such as locking the ruleset revision. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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

Deploy Server