Check edit access to a Splunk dashboard before updating. Reads the ACL to return can_write status with a plain-language verdict.
Check whether you can edit a dashboard BEFORE trying to update it. Reads the Splunk ACL and reports can_write with a plain-language verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | App namespace. Default search. | |
| name | Yes | Dashboard (view) name/id. | |
| owner | No | Owner username. Default any (-). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Reads the Splunk ACL and reports can_write' makes the read-only nature and return style explicit. It could mention error or login preconditions, but the tool is a simple access check and no side effects are implied.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The key instruction appears first, and the second sentence states what the tool reads and returns. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description gives enough return semantics ('can_write' plus a verdict). It does not specify behavior on missing dashboards or ACL errors, but it is sufficient for the tool's narrow access-check purpose.
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 app, name, and owner parameters are already documented. The description adds workflow context but not additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema handles it.
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 specific verb and resource: check whether you can edit a dashboard. It also names the mechanism (reads the Splunk ACL) and the output (can_write with a plain-language verdict), which distinguishes it from update_dashboard and get_dashboard.
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 explicitly tells the agent to run this 'BEFORE trying to update it,' making the timing relative to update_dashboard clear. It does not enumerate all alternative tools or with exclusions, but the intended workflow is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.