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 mentions the return format ('JSON string with list of entities'), which adds some context, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the main action. However, the formatting includes extra whitespace and quotes, slightly detracting from perfect 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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and return format, but with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios and behavioral traits. The output schema handles return values, so the description's brevity is acceptable but not fully informative.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary details.

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: 'List entities that are currently in lockdown.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('entities in lockdown'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_entities' or 'list_detections_with_basic_info', which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'list_entities' or when lockdown status is relevant. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without direction in selecting among similar listing tools.

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