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 troubleshooting guides as embedded resources), mentions the optional auto-detection feature, and provides practical tips. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 clear sections (purpose, args with detailed examples, returns, and tip). While comprehensive, it maintains efficiency with each sentence adding value. The bullet-point examples for parameters are helpful but make it slightly longer than minimal.

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?

For a read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides excellent context. It explains what the tool returns (embedded resource with detailed guide), documents all parameters thoroughly, and provides usage guidance. The main gap is lack of explicit mention that this is a read-only operation, though that's implied by the 'Get' verb.

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 in detail: 'topic' with examples and a reference to a sibling tool, 'version' with specific examples and default behavior, and 'auto_detect_version' with its purpose and default value.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed Splunk troubleshooting documentation for specific topics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_splunk_documentation' by focusing specifically on troubleshooting guides rather than general 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 directs users to 'list_troubleshooting_topics()' to discover available topics, mentions common topics with examples, and distinguishes this from general documentation tools among the siblings.

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