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 key behaviors: it 'returns embedded resources with actual content in markdown format', mentions support for 'all documentation types', and explains the auto_detect_version parameter's default behavior. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a documentation retrieval tool.

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 a clear purpose statement, parameter documentation, return value explanation, and usage tip. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with complex parameter semantics. The examples are valuable but make the description longer than minimal - every sentence earns its place by providing necessary context for proper tool use.

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 complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, parameter semantics, return format, and references a sibling tool for discovery. The main gap is lack of output schema documentation, but the description states it 'Returns embedded resource with actual documentation content in markdown format' which provides basic return information.

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 extensive parameter documentation. It explains doc_uri as 'Documentation URI pattern' with 10 specific examples showing different patterns and use cases, and describes auto_detect_version as 'Whether to auto-detect Splunk version for dynamic resources' with its default value. This adds substantial meaning 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: 'Retrieve any Splunk documentation by URI pattern' with specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Splunk documentation'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it 'wraps existing documentation resources and returns embedded resources with actual content', differentiating from tools like get_admin_guide or get_spl_reference that might fetch specific documentation types.

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: 'Use list_available_topics() to see all available URI patterns and topics' and includes a tip reinforcing this. It also distinguishes from alternatives by explaining this tool 'makes them compatible with agentic frameworks that don't support MCP resources natively', indicating when this wrapper approach is needed versus direct resource access.

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