PingOne Advanced Identity Cloud MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially incomplete results. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details. With annotations covering core safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description adds minimal extra value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It uses clear language with no redundant words or structural fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 0 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. For a read-only tool with open-world hints, more context on result expectations would improve completeness.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. A score of 4 reflects that the description appropriately handles this parameter-less case without unnecessary clutter.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of available log sources'), specifying the system context ('in PingOne AIC'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'queryLogs' by focusing on source metadata rather than log content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'queryLogs' or other 'get*' tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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