MCP Server for Splunk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool 'Returns the complete cheat sheet as an embedded resource with actual markdown content,' which indicates a read-only operation returning formatted data. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, 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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The bullet points provide additional detail without redundancy. However, the second paragraph could be integrated more seamlessly, and some phrasing is slightly verbose, such as 'Returns embedded resource with complete SPL reference content including:' which repeats information from the first sentence.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and its use case. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as response format details or error scenarios, to fully guide an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given because the tool has no parameters, and the description effectively explains what the tool does without unnecessary parameter details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the comprehensive Splunk SPL cheat sheet with commands, regex patterns, and usage examples.' It specifies the exact resource (SPL cheat sheet) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_spl_reference or get_splunk_documentation by focusing on a concise reference guide rather than broader 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'perfect for quick reference during SPL query development and troubleshooting.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as get_spl_reference for more detailed command information.

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