Salesforce MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that the tool returns the new record's ID on success, mentions the need for required fields (implied from describe_object), and notes that data dict keys must be field API names. The annotations only indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), so the description compensates well but doesn't cover aspects like error handling or rate limits.

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: it starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, parameter details, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (mutation with 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only covering read-only status), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases or authentication needs, leaving minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'object_name' is clarified as the object name (e.g., 'Contact'), and 'data' is described as a dict of field values with keys as field API names. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints beyond the example.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Salesforce record'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_record or delete_record. It specifies what it does: creates a new record given an object name and field data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it instructs to 'Call describe_object first to see required fields and valid picklist values,' indicating a prerequisite and distinguishing it from describe_object. It also implies usage for creating new records, not updating or deleting.

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