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 states the tool returns a 'formatted string' but doesn't describe the format, potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. While 'Get' implies a safe read, more behavioral context would help the agent use it effectively.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The second sentence elaborates on the summary content, and the 'Returns:' section is clear. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, and the structure could be tighter by merging these points.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool retrieves and the return format. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, it lacks context about when to use this versus sibling tools.

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, with the parameter 'detection_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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: 'Get a concise summary of a detection' and lists the specific fields included (ID, name, category, etc.). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_detection_details' or 'get_detection_count' by focusing on a formatted summary rather than raw data or counts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the text.

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 like 'get_detection_details' or 'list_detections_with_basic_info'. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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