Salesforce MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, suggesting mutable operations and flexible endpoints. The description adds valuable context by specifying the Tooling API's focus on metadata/developer objects and providing concrete usage examples, though it doesn't detail authentication needs, rate limits, or mutation consequences beyond the annotations' scope.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific object examples and clear usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, efficiently conveying essential information in a well-structured format.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides strong purpose and usage context but lacks full parameter documentation. It compensates well with examples and sibling differentiation, though more parameter details would enhance completeness for this open-world API 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It provides examples showing 'action' as a query string path (e.g., 'query/?q=SELECT...'), but doesn't explain 'method' or 'data' parameters. This adds some value but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

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 ('Execute a Salesforce Tooling API call') and resource ('metadata and developer objects'), listing examples like ApexClass and CustomField. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with run_soql_query for regular data queries.

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 ('for metadata inspection') versus alternatives ('Use run_soql_query for regular data queries'), directly addressing sibling tool differentiation with clear context and exclusions.

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