MCP Server for Splunk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a tracked job with progress/stats, mentions security constraints ('results are constrained by the authenticated user's permissions'), and describes output format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or whether the job persists beyond the session.

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 clear sections: purpose, usage guidelines, output description, security note, and detailed parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and complex behavior.

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 (tracked job execution), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and security. However, without an output schema, it could provide more detail about the structure of returned results (JSON format specifics) and job status values.

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 parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. It explains what each parameter represents, provides format details (Splunk time format), gives concrete examples for all three parameters, and specifies default values for optional parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('run a Splunk search as a tracked job') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'run_oneshot_search'. It identifies the resource (Splunk search) and scope (complex/long-running queries with job tracking).

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 ('for complex or long-running queries where you need job status, scan/event counts, and reliable result retrieval') and when to use alternatives ('prefer this over oneshot when the query may exceed ~30s or requires progress visibility'). It names the specific alternative tool ('oneshot' referring to 'run_oneshot_search').

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