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. It mentions 'status filtering' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if results are paginated (though 'limit' and 'offset' in schema hint at this), or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key feature (status filtering), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or result format, which are critical for a listing tool with filtering. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for effective agent 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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities ('with status filtering'), which loosely relates to the 'filters' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('access requests'), and specifies 'with status filtering' which adds useful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_aggregate' which might also retrieve access requests, so it doesn't reach the highest tier of sibling differentiation.

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 like 'search' or 'search_aggregate' from the sibling list. It mentions status filtering but doesn't explain if this is the primary tool for listing access requests or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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