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: it returns metadata (not content), supports filtering and pagination via parameters, and has performance considerations (default count=50). It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or error handling, but covers core operational aspects well.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and well-organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the most important details first. No wasted words 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters control, and what metadata is returned. The main gap is lack of output format details (structure of returned metadata), but given the context and sibling tools, this is a minor omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. Each of the 5 parameters is explained with purpose, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'owner: Filter by owner. Default: nobody (all users)', 'search_filter: Filter results (e.g., name=*geo*)'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 CSV lookup table files in Splunk') and resource ('lookup files'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_lookup_definitions or list_config_files. It explicitly mentions what metadata is returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 ('to discover available lookup files') and when to use an alternative ('To view the actual CSV content, use run_splunk_search with...'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools and establishes proper context.

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