Salesforce MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, meaning the tool can perform write operations and has broad capabilities. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the path is 'relative to /services/data/vXX.0/' and 'Method defaults to GET,' which are critical behavioral details not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential risks like data destruction or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and common examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information—no fluff or redundancy. The bulleted list of common paths is efficient and enhances clarity without verbosity.

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 (open-world, multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, key parameters, and behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain return values or error handling, which could be important for an agent invoking raw API calls. With annotations providing some safety context, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for parameters: it explains that 'path' is relative to a base URL and lists common examples, clarifies that 'method' defaults to GET, and implies 'params' and 'data' are for query parameters and request bodies respectively through context. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail all parameter nuances like data formats.

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: 'Execute a raw Salesforce REST API call.' It specifies this is an 'escape hatch for API endpoints not covered by other tools,' which explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific operations like create_record, delete_record, run_soql_query, etc. The verb 'execute' and resource 'Salesforce REST API call' are specific and unambiguous.

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: as an 'escape hatch for API endpoints not covered by other tools.' This directly contrasts it with all sibling tools listed, which cover specific operations. It also includes common use cases (e.g., listing objects, describing objects, running reports) to illustrate scenarios where this tool is appropriate, effectively guiding the agent away from using more specialized siblings.

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