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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the two execution modes and their implications (immediate results vs. progress tracking), mentions output capping ('capped by max_results'), and includes security constraints ('execution and results are constrained by the authenticated user's permissions'). It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 two focused paragraphs: the first states the core functionality and usage, the second details outputs and security. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, key parameters, outputs, and security. However, it doesn't explain the format of 'results list' or provide examples of time formats for overrides, leaving minor gaps. For a tool with no structured output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial.

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 7 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of key parameters: 'name' (to identify the saved search), 'time overrides' (implied for 'earliest_time'/'latest_time'), and 'mode selection' (with details on 'oneshot' vs. 'job'). It also mentions 'max_results' in the output context. While it doesn't cover all parameters (e.g., 'app', 'owner'), it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Run a saved search by name') and resource ('saved search'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_oneshot_search' or 'run_splunk_search' which execute ad-hoc searches rather than pre-saved ones. It explicitly mentions executing 'existing reports/automations', further clarifying its purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to execute existing reports/automations quickly') and offers clear alternatives within the tool itself ('Choose 'oneshot' for immediate results or 'job' for progress tracking and large result sets'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_oneshot_search' by focusing on saved searches rather than ad-hoc queries.

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