PingOne Advanced Identity Cloud MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially large result sets. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the 24-hour time range constraint, pagination support via pagedResultsCookie, and critical troubleshooting advice about the 500 error when field paths don't start with '/'. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Query PingOne AIC logs') followed by the key filtering dimensions. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 query tool with comprehensive schema coverage and good annotations, the description provides adequate context. It covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral aspects. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values since that's the output schema's responsibility when it exists.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already thoroughly documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Query') and resource ('PingOne AIC logs') with specific filtering capabilities ('by time range, source, transaction ID, and payload content'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getLogSources' by focusing on querying rather than listing available sources.

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 implies usage for querying logs with filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'queryManagedObjects' or 'queryESVs'. However, it does reference 'getLogSources' as a prerequisite for determining available sources, providing some contextual guidance.

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