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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns a JSON string and may raise an exception on failure, but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or what specific details are included in the response.

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 appropriately brief with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the action, describing the return value, and noting potential errors. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the formatting with separate 'Returns' and 'Raises' sections could be more integrated.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple similar siblings, the description should provide more context about when to use it and what distinguishes it from alternatives to be fully complete.

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 already fully documents the single 'detection_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 as 'Get complete detailed information for a particular detection,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_detection_summary' or 'list_detections_with_details,' which likely provide less detailed or more aggregated information.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to detections (e.g., get_detection_summary, list_detections_with_details), there's no indication of when this detailed view is preferred over other options or what prerequisites might exist.

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