Vectra AI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful context: it describes error handling (returns message if host not found, raises exception on request error) and hints at the return format ('Formatted string with detailed information'). However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading).

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: the first sentence clearly states the purpose. The 'Returns:' section adds necessary behavioral details without redundancy. However, the formatting with line breaks and indentation slightly reduces readability, and the error handling details could be more integrated into the main flow.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation implied), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and error handling but lacks guidance on when to use versus alternatives, authentication needs, or detailed return format beyond 'formatted string.' The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more about the return structure.

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 'host_id' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 complete detailed information about a specific host entity.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('host entity'), and scope ('complete detailed information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup_host_by_ip' or 'lookup_entity_info_by_name', which appear to serve similar host/entity lookup functions.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'lookup_host_by_ip' (for IP-based lookup) or 'lookup_entity_info_by_name' (for name-based lookup), nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond needing a host ID. 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.