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 detailed information (implying a read-only operation) and describes the response format, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 purpose, parameters, and response format sections, and is appropriately sized. However, the 'Response Format' section is quite detailed and could be slightly condensed, though it adds value by explaining the nested 'details' fields, which are not covered by an output schema.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, and response format in detail. It lacks some behavioral context (e.g., error cases, auth needs), but the response explanation partially compensates for the missing output schema. Slight gaps remain for a tool with no structured metadata.

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, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters in the 'Args' section: 'name' (required, for inspection), 'app' (optional, for context), and 'owner' (optional, for context). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by clarifying their roles in saved search lookup.

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 verbs ('Get comprehensive details about a specific saved search') and resources ('saved search'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_saved_searches' (which lists) and 'execute_saved_search' (which runs). It explicitly mentions what details are included: configuration, metadata, scheduling, permissions, and alert actions.

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 ('Essential for troubleshooting, auditing, and understanding saved search configurations'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'list_saved_searches' for a high-level overview). It implies usage for detailed inspection rather than listing or execution.

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