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. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool lists only searches accessible to the current user (permissions context) and includes filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no filters match—leaving gaps for 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage context, and then a cleanly formatted parameter section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned items) and behavioral nuances like pagination or error cases, which are important for a list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all four parameters: explaining what each filters by (owner name, application name, sharing level) and clarifying the default behavior for 'include_disabled'. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, though it doesn't detail the enum values for 'sharing'.

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 saved searches') and the scope of metadata included ('ownership, schedule, visibility, and permission metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_saved_search_details' (which retrieves details of a specific search) and 'execute_saved_search' (which runs a search).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to discover available reports/automations and to filter by owner/app/sharing'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for listing vs. detailed retrieval or execution, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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