MCP Server for Splunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'confirmation and safety checks,' hinting at behavioral traits like requiring user confirmation and having safety mechanisms. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or what happens if the search doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a saved search') and adds brief context ('with confirmation and safety checks'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at safety but doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, or usage context. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (name, confirm, app, owner) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'name' refers to, the purpose of 'confirm,' or how 'app' and 'owner' affect the deletion. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a saved search'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_saved_search' or 'list_saved_searches' beyond the basic verb, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 mentions 'confirmation and safety checks,' which implies a cautious context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_saved_search' or 'list_saved_searches.' There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for invocation.

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