MCP Server for Splunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns structured information about configuration files, which is helpful, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about the output's use. There is no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and output context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and doesn't fully explain the return values beyond 'structured information,' which could be more specific. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has gaps in completeness.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does mention the output's purpose (to be used with 'get_config_spec()'), which provides useful context. Since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as the description adds value without redundancy.

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: listing Splunk configuration files with descriptions. It specifies the resource (Splunk .conf files) and the verb (list), and mentions the structured output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_apps' or 'list_sources' that also list resources, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 implies usage by mentioning that the output can be used with 'get_config_spec()' for detailed documentation, suggesting a workflow context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_configurations' or other list_* tools), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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