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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns a JSON string, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no assignments match filters. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and return value. However, the 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists, and the formatting with extra whitespace slightly reduces structural efficiency.

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 existence of an output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description covers basic purpose adequately. However, for a tool with multiple sibling listing alternatives and no annotations, it should provide more contextual guidance about when to use this specific tool versus others.

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 both parameters. The description mentions 'optional filtering by timestamp and resolved state' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('investigation assignments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_assignments_for_user' by specifying 'all investigation assignments', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling tool.

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 'list_assignments_for_user' or 'get_assignment_detail_by_id'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what scenarios warrant using this tool over other listing tools.

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