Salesforce MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what data is returned ('all readable fields'), explains ID format constraints (15 or 18 characters with type prefixes), and references object type codes. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds useful operational details.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise: first sentence states core purpose, second explains ID format, third provides usage alternatives. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, and key details are front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides excellent context: purpose, usage guidelines, ID format details, and return scope. Without an output schema, it clarifies what's returned ('all readable fields'). Minor gap: doesn't specify error behavior or pagination (though likely not needed for single-record retrieval).

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some semantic context: it explains record_id format (15/18 character strings with type prefixes) and implies object_name relates to Salesforce objects, but doesn't explicitly define object_name or provide examples. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves object_name ambiguous.

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 action ('Get a single Salesforce record by its ID') and resource ('Salesforce record'), distinguishing it from siblings like run_soql_query (for finding IDs) or create_record/update_record (for write operations). It provides precise scope ('Returns all readable fields').

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get a single Salesforce record by its ID') and when to use alternatives ('Use run_soql_query or run_sosl_search to find record IDs if you only have a name or email'), providing clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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