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 'optional filtering' and that access profiles bundle entitlements, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about access profiles. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or output format, but it's efficiently written.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and resource context but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more guidance on how results are returned or when to use alternatives 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (limit, offset, filters, sorters, forSubadmin). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filtering' which aligns with the 'filters' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax examples or clarify relationships between parameters. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'List access profiles with optional filtering.' It specifies the resource (access profiles) and the action (list with filtering), and mentions that access profiles bundle entitlements for role-based access, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_access_profile' or 'search', which are also retrieval tools.

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 sibling tools like 'get_access_profile' (for single profile retrieval), 'search' (for broader queries), or 'list_access_requests' (for related resources). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose the right tool for specific scenarios.

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