SailPoint MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' and 'statistics', which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely accesses sensitive certification data.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' or 'statistics' include, nor does it cover error conditions or authentication requirements. For a tool in a security/compliance context (certification campaigns), more contextual detail is needed to guide proper usage.

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 as 'The campaign ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 ('certification campaign') with the scope of 'detailed information including statistics'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_certification_campaigns' by focusing on a single campaign 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving detailed campaign data, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or direct alternatives like 'get_certification' or 'list_certification_campaigns'.

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