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. It discloses that the tool returns 'structured information about available topics' and lists examples like 'cheatsheet, definition schema, visualizations guide, and configuration options,' adding useful context about the output content. However, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 states the purpose and output, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the usage guidance more explicitly, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance characteristics. For a discovery tool in a complex environment, more context on behavior and limitations would enhance 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool, as it doesn't add unnecessary details beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'List all available Dashboard Studio documentation topics.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Dashboard Studio documentation topics'), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_available_topics' or 'get_studio_topic,' which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to discover what Dashboard Studio documentation is available.' This suggests the tool is for discovery purposes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_studio_topic' or 'list_available_topics,' leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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