Skip to main content
Glama
sassoftware

SAS MCP Server

Official
by sassoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Update Business Ruleset

update_business_ruleset
DestructiveIdempotent

Updates an existing SAS Business Rules rule set's name, description, or signature, and assigns a folder to unfiled rule sets to keep them organized and referenced rules valid.

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.

The rule set stays in its folder. One that is in no folder (created before folders were required) is filed into folder, or the default folder. The result's folder says where the rule set is.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRule set name (max 30 chars).
folderNoOnly used when the rule set is in no folder yet: a folder path, ``My Folder``, a folder ID or a folder URI to file it in.
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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.19.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / folder
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Only used when the rule set is in no folder yet: a folder\npath, ``My Folder``, a folder ID or a folder URI to file it in."
+}
  2. 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)."
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming the concrete destructive consequence: changing the signature can invalidate existing rules that reference removed variables. It also discloses the folder side effect — an unfiled rule set gets filed into the given or default folder, and the returned 'folder' reports where it landed — which the destructiveHint annotation alone would never convey.

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?

Front-loads the operation in the first sentence, then devotes short paragraphs to the risk and folder behavior — every sentence carries information. The folder paragraph is slightly longer than needed and could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a destructive mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the invalidation risk, the folder-filing rule, and where to verify current state before calling. The one remaining ambiguity — whether a revision lock is a prerequisite — is a minor gap against an otherwise complete picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic consequence of the 'signature' parameter (invalidating dependent rules) and the conditional nature of 'folder' (only applies when the rule set has no folder yet, with a default fallback). It adds little for ruleset_id or name, which the schema already handles well.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (an existing SAS Business Rules rule set) plus exactly which fields are mutable (name/description/signature). The word 'existing' plus the sibling set (create_business_ruleset, get_business_ruleset, delete_business_ruleset) makes the operation unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_business_ruleset first when the signature change is risky, naming both the alternative and the condition. It does not cover other selection questions, such as whether a revision lock is required before updating (the sibling lock_business_ruleset_revision is never mentioned), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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