MCP Server for Splunk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully adds important context beyond the basic 'create' action: it mentions output format ('creation status and the applied configuration'), security constraints ('visibility and execution are constrained by permissions and chosen sharing level'), and the optional scheduling capability. It doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or detailed permission requirements.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with three sentences that each add value: the core functionality, the purpose/use case, and security/output information. There's no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a creation tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context but leaves significant gaps. It covers the 'what' and 'why' well but doesn't address parameter details, error handling, or return format specifics beyond mentioning 'creation status and the applied configuration'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 10 parameters, the description doesn't compensate by explaining any specific parameters. While it mentions 'optional scheduling and sharing' which hints at some parameters, it doesn't detail the 10 specific inputs or their relationships. The baseline would be lower given the coverage gap, but the description provides some high-level context about what can be configured.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a saved search'), the resource ('report/automation'), and key capabilities ('optional scheduling and sharing'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_saved_search' by focusing on creation rather than execution, and from 'update_saved_search' by being for initial creation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to persist useful SPL queries and optionally schedule them via cron'), which helps differentiate it from other search-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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