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 context: marking as fixed closes the detection as 'remediated' (implying a status change), and it mentions potential failure with an exception. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., notifications), rate limits, or idempotency. The description doesn't contradict annotations, as there are none.

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 with three sentences: purpose, elaboration on 'fixed', and return/error info. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the 'Returns:' and 'Raises:' sections are somewhat redundant given the output schema, and the elaboration could be more integrated, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with two parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and error handling but lacks context on when to use it, behavioral nuances, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (detection_ids and mark_fixed). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 ('marks or unmark') and resource ('detection as fixed'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'close_detection' or 'update_detection_status' that might exist in other contexts, though among the provided sibling tools, it's distinct as the only one that modifies detection status.

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 prerequisites (e.g., detection must be open to mark as fixed), exclusions (e.g., cannot mark already-fixed detections), or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_detections_with_details' for context. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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