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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'comprehensive guide' with embedded resources, listing specific content types like static resources, dynamic patterns, and version support. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, or whether it requires authentication. The description adds useful context but is incomplete for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the subsequent list of return items is detailed and might be better summarized. Every sentence adds value by specifying output content, but the structure could be tighter to emphasize key points more efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (discovery-focused with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns in detail, but it does not cover all contextual aspects such as prerequisites, limitations, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with no structured data support, more behavioral and operational context would enhance completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present, and the description focuses correctly on output and usage without redundant parameter information.

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 tool's purpose: to 'discover all available Splunk documentation resources with examples and usage patterns.' It specifies the verb ('discover') and resource ('Splunk documentation resources'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_splunk_documentation by focusing on discovery rather than retrieval. However, it could be more precise about what 'discover' entails operationally.

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: 'Perfect for understanding what documentation is available and how to access it through the documentation tools.' It implies usage as a starting point for documentation exploration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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