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 this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the return format (dashboard source, type, etc.), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving behavioral gaps 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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and return values. The 'Args' section efficiently documents parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. It provides enough context for basic usage, but could improve by addressing potential errors, authentication needs, or more detailed behavioral traits to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'name' is the dashboard name (required), 'owner' is the dashboard owner with default 'nobody', and 'app' is the app context with default 'search'. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context on format or constraints.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('raw definition of a specific dashboard'), specifying what information is returned (complete dashboard source, type, app context, owner, and Splunk Web viewing URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_dashboards' (which lists dashboards) by focusing on retrieving detailed definition data for a single dashboard.

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 implies usage context by specifying it retrieves the 'raw definition' of a 'specific dashboard', suggesting it should be used when detailed source data is needed rather than just listing dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_dashboards' or provide exclusions, though the specificity helps differentiate from broader tools.

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