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 describes what information the tool returns (structured information about topics, commands, URI patterns, version support) but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details. It adequately describes the tool's function but lacks operational context.

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. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a bulleted list of what information is returned, and concludes with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the bulleted list could be slightly more concise.

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 zero-parameter nature and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool returns (structured information across multiple categories) and when to use it. For a discovery tool with no parameters, this is sufficiently complete, though it could benefit from mentioning response format or pagination behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage guidelines.

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 ('List all available documentation topics and URI patterns for discovery') and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's for discovery before requesting specific topics. It explicitly differentiates from tools like get_splunk_documentation or get_troubleshooting_guide by positioning itself as a discovery-first tool.

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 usage guidance with 'Use this tool first to discover what documentation is available before requesting specific topics.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_splunk_documentation or get_troubleshooting_guide, establishing a clear workflow sequence.

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