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 and does this well. It reveals important behavioral traits: the time filters are 'advisory' rather than strict, Splunk's fired alerts feed behavior, security constraints based on user permissions, and output structure details. This goes beyond basic parameter documentation to explain how the tool actually behaves.

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 purpose first, then usage context, parameter explanations, output details, and security note. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value - no redundant information. The Args section is clearly labeled and the Security note is appropriately placed at the end.

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 tool with no annotations, 4 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, behavior, parameters, and outputs. The only minor gap is that while it mentions the output includes 'triggered_alerts array, total counts, and the applied parameters', it doesn't provide a complete schema of what fields each alert contains beyond the initial list in the first sentence.

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 rich semantic context for all parameters. It explains that 'count' is a 'max results cap', clarifies that earliest_time/latest_time are 'advisory filters' with specific default values and time format examples, and specifies that 'search' is a 'case-insensitive substring filter applied to alert group name'. This adds substantial meaning 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 fired alerts and their details') and resource ('triggered alerts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_saved_searches or list_dashboards. It provides concrete details about what information is included (saved search name, trigger time, owner/app, trigger reason), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 review recent triggered alerts'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. While it distinguishes itself from other list tools by focusing on triggered alerts, it doesn't provide explicit guidance about choosing between this and other alert-related tools that might not exist in the sibling list.

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