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 describes the output format ('structured list' with command name, description, example usage) and clarifies that it's a subset ('most common commands'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list is static or dynamically generated.

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: first sentence states the core purpose, bullet points clarify output format, and a note provides important contextual guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and how it relates to other tools. It could be more complete by specifying whether the output is paginated or if there are any performance considerations, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of structured output documentation, it's reasonably complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'List common SPL (Search Processing Language) commands with descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('SPL commands'), and output format ('structured list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_spl_reference which provides detailed reference information rather than a summary list.

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 versus alternatives: 'Returns a structured list of SPL commands that can be used with the get_spl_reference tool' and 'Note: This list includes the most common commands, but get_spl_reference supports many more SPL commands beyond those listed here.' This clearly defines the scope and relationship with the sibling tool.

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