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 the tool's behavior by specifying what information is returned ('structured information about all 26 CIM data models including name, description, use cases, required tags, and deprecation status'), which is valuable context beyond just stating it's a list operation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first describes what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation (though that's implied by 'List'), but given the tool's simplicity and the clear sibling differentiation, this is still quite complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is the correct emphasis for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('List all available'), resource ('Splunk Common Information Model (CIM) data models'), and scope ('all 26 CIM data models'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'get_cim_reference' by stating its purpose is for discovery before calling that sibling.

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 this to discover what CIM models are available before calling get_cim_reference'), clearly positioning it as a discovery tool that should be used prior to the more specific reference tool.

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