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. It discloses that the tool returns 'comprehensive administration guides with configuration, management, and best practices as an embedded resource,' which gives some behavioral context (output format). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling for a read operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, detailed parameter explanations, and a helpful tip. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters, though the bulleted lists for topics and versions are slightly verbose but informative.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics thoroughly. A minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details beyond 'embedded resource,' but this is partially mitigated by the context provided.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'topic' with examples and references 'list_admin_topics()', details 'version' with examples and default behavior, and clarifies 'auto_detect_version' with its purpose and default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Get detailed Splunk administration documentation for specific topics.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Splunk administration documentation'), and scope ('specific topics'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_splunk_documentation' (likely general docs) or 'get_cim_reference' (specific to CIM).

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: it names 'list_admin_topics()' as a prerequisite to discover available topics, includes a tip to use that sibling tool, and lists common topics. It implicitly distinguishes it from other documentation tools by focusing on administration topics.

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