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 discloses that the tool returns comprehensive documentation (reference material), which implies it's a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks depth on operational constraints.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and return value. The Args section efficiently provides parameter details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information, with no wasted words.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. The main gap is lack of output details (what exactly the 'comprehensive reference' contains structurally), but this is partially mitigated by the clear purpose statement. For a documentation retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'config': explains it's a configuration file name, clarifies format (with or without .conf extension), gives usage guidance (reference list_config_files()), and provides concrete examples ('props.conf', 'transforms', 'indexes.conf'). This adds substantial value 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed Splunk configuration file specification documentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_configurations (which likely retrieves actual config values) or get_splunk_documentation (which appears more general). It explicitly mentions what is returned: comprehensive reference with options, syntax, and examples.

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 versus alternatives. It directs users to 'Use list_config_files() to see common files' for parameter input, and the sibling tool list includes get_configurations (likely for actual config values) and get_splunk_documentation (likely more general), clearly differentiating this tool's specific focus on configuration file specifications.

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