SailPoint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond entitlements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information', 'about a specific access profile', 'including entitlements') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent might struggle with how to interpret results or handle errors, making this incomplete for optimal use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain where to find the ID, its format, or examples. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Get') and resource ('access profile') with specific detail about what information is retrieved ('detailed information... including entitlements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_access_profiles' by focusing on a single profile rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools that might also retrieve detailed information.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple profiles), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_access_profiles' for broader queries. 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.