Skip to main content
Glama
sassoftware

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Update Business Ruleset

update_business_ruleset
DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing SAS business ruleset's name, description, or signature. Check current rules first before changing signature to avoid invalidating rules that reference removed variables.

Instructions

Update an existing SAS Business Rules rule set's name/description/signature.

Changing the signature can invalidate existing rules that reference removed variables — check with get_business_ruleset first if unsure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRule set name (max 30 chars).
signatureYesInput/output/inOut variables the rules operate on.
ruleset_idYesThe existing rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both).
descriptionNoOptional description.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / ruleset_id / description
      Previous value: -"The existing rule set UUID."New value: +"The existing rule set UUID (not its name — list_business_rulesets returns both)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is potentially destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by warning that changing the signature can invalidate existing rules referencing removed variables, and suggests a preflight check. This is meaningful, non-obvious behavior that helps an agent anticipate consequences.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and target, and the second sentence adds a critical caution. There is no fluff or repetition, and the warning earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The input schema, annotations, and output schema already cover most call mechanics, and the warning about signature invalidation adds important operational context. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly mentioning any revision-lock prerequisite implied by sibling tools like lock_business_ruleset_revision, but overall it is adequately complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and risks.

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 documents all parameters including ruleset_id, name, signature, and description. The description mentions the fields at a high level but does not need to add further semantic detail; the warning about signature effects is a behavioral note rather than parameter syntax.

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') and names the exact resource ('existing SAS Business Rules rule set') plus the affected fields: name/description/signature. This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like update_business_rule, delete_business_ruleset, and get_business_ruleset.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool and includes a useful precondition: check get_business_ruleset first if unsure about signature changes. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or contrast with update_business_rule, but the resource scoping is strong enough to make the primary use case obvious.

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