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 what the tool does (discovers and lists workflows), output formats, sources (core vs. contrib), and key information provided. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a comprehensive behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Output Formats, Workflow Sources, Key Information Provided, When to use, Arguments, Outputs) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by eliminating some redundancy (e.g., 'Perfect for discovering...' repeats earlier content).

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context about what the tool does, when to use it, parameters, and outputs. However, without an output schema, more detail about the structure of returned data would be beneficial, though the format descriptions help mitigate this gap.

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 semantic information for all 4 parameters. It explains each argument's purpose, default values, and valid options (e.g., format_type options: 'detailed', 'summary', 'ids_only', 'by_category'), adding 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 tool's purpose: 'List all available workflows from core and contrib sources.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('workflows'), and scope ('core and contrib sources'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_executed_workflows' or 'workflow_runner' that focus on execution rather than discovery.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when you need to discover which workflows exist before running one' and 'Use to filter by category or get just workflow IDs for programmatic selection.' It provides clear context for its purpose in the workflow discovery process, distinguishing it from execution-focused siblings.

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