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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (returns comprehensive documentation with syntax, examples, and usage patterns as an embedded resource), mentions the return format ('embedded resource'), and provides helpful context about command availability. It doesn't cover potential errors or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral information.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides parameter details in a clear Args section, states the return value, and ends with a helpful tip. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value and the structure facilitates understanding.

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 provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, parameters with examples and defaults, return format, and usage guidance relative to sibling tools. The main gap is lack of error case information, but overall it's quite complete for this type of documentation retrieval tool.

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 providing rich parameter semantics. It explains all three parameters: 'command' with examples and guidance to use list_spl_commands(), 'version' with specific version examples and default behavior, and 'auto_detect_version' with its purpose and default value. This adds significant 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: 'Get detailed reference documentation for specific SPL (Search Processing Language) commands.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('reference documentation'), and scope ('SPL commands'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_splunk_documentation or get_cim_reference by focusing specifically on SPL command documentation.

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 mentions 'Use list_spl_commands() to see common commands' and clarifies that 'this tool supports many more SPL commands beyond the common ones listed,' helping the agent understand the relationship with sibling tools and when to choose this specific tool.

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