MCP Server for Splunk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that results exclude internal system indexes (e.g., _internal, _audit) for readability and are constrained by user permissions, which are not inferable from the empty input schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and behavioral details in subsequent sentences, with no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: retrieval action, use case, and output constraints.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits like filtering and permissions. A minor gap is the lack of detail on output format (e.g., list structure or fields), but this is partially mitigated by the clear scope.

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 does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on tool behavior and output, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('all accessible data indexes'), specifies the scope ('from the Splunk instance'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on index discovery for querying/troubleshooting, unlike other list tools for apps, dashboards, or searches.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use ('to discover which indexes you can query when building searches or troubleshooting data availability'), but does not mention when not to use or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as list_sources or list_sourcetypes for other data discovery tasks.

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