Vectra AI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type (Base64 encoded pcap data or error message) and potential exceptions, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which are critical for a tool that retrieves sensitive data like pcap files.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return and exception details. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the formatting with 'Returns:' and 'Raises:' sections is slightly verbose for a short description, but still efficient.

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 (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and potential complexity in handling pcap data, the description could benefit from more context on error conditions or usage constraints. It's minimally adequate but has gaps in behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'detection_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pcap file for a specific detection'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_detection_details or get_detection_summary by focusing on pcap retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as list_detection_ids, which also involves detections but with different outputs.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a valid detection_id from list_detections or compare to other detection-related tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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