SailPoint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' and 'connection status,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no 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,' 'specific source,' 'connection status') 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 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and resource but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a simple read operation, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The source ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for obtaining the ID. With high schema coverage, 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific source'), including the scope of information ('connection status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_sources' by focusing on a single source rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that retrieve different resource types.

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 a source ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_sources' for browsing or other 'get_' tools for different resources. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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