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 a JSON string and raises an exception on failure, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling specifics. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. However, the inclusion of 'Raises: Exception' is somewhat vague and could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the basic purpose and error handling, but lacks context on usage relative to siblings and behavioral traits, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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, clearly documenting the 'assignment_id' parameter. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as valid ID ranges or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('details of a specific investigation assignment'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_assignment_for_entity' or 'list_assignments', which might retrieve similar data in different contexts, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_assignments' for broader queries or 'get_assignment_for_entity' for entity-specific assignments, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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