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. It mentions that it returns a JSON string and can raise an exception on failure, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what 'assignment details' entail, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive investigation data.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns' and 'Raises' sections are useful but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more polished in structure.

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 is an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and a tool that likely involves sensitive data access, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, data sensitivity). It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between entity_ids and entity_type or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('investigation assignment for a specific account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it specifies 'account' while the input schema includes both 'account' and 'host' entity types, creating a slight mismatch. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_assignments' or 'get_assignment_detail_by_id'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_assignments' or 'get_assignment_detail_by_id'. The description only states what the tool does without context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.

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