Salesforce MCP Server

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return format (name, label, queryable, createable, custom), mentions standard vs. custom object patterns, and clarifies the search parameter's substring filtering behavior.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains returns, third covers the parameter, fourth gives examples, fifth distinguishes object types, and sixth guides next steps. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, and key information is 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (read-only listing with one optional filter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, output explanation, and integration with sibling tools, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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 for the single 'search' parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining its purpose ('filter by name/label substring') and providing examples of object names. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail exact matching rules or case sensitivity.

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 ('List all Salesforce objects') and resource ('in this org'), distinguishing it from siblings like describe_object (for fields) and SOQL/SOSL tools (for data queries). It explicitly mentions both standard and custom objects, providing concrete examples.

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 ('first step when exploring an unfamiliar org' and 'when you need to find a custom object') and when to follow up with alternatives ('Follow up with describe_object to see fields'). It distinguishes this from query tools by positioning it as a discovery step.

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