Vectra AI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns: str: Formatted string with assignment details' and 'Raises: Exception: If assignment creation fails', which adds some context beyond the basic action. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by return and error information in separate lines. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting with quotes and indentation could be slightly cleaner. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in the description) and the input schema has full coverage, the description covers the basics: action, return type, and error handling. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context, such as mutational impact or prerequisites, to be fully complete. It's adequate but has clear gaps in usage guidance and transparency.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all three parameters (e.g., 'ID of the user to assign the entity to'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('investigation assignment for an account or host'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'delete_assignment' or 'list_assignments', which would require mentioning it's specifically for creation rather than deletion or listing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing entities or users, or when to choose this over other assignment-related tools like 'list_assignments_for_user'. This lack of context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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