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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest it), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying both the action and additional context about what's included in the listing.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (like authentication needs or return format) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and output schema.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'filters' or 'sorters' relate to 'certification campaigns'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 ('certification campaigns'), specifying what the tool does. It adds useful context about what information is included ('with status and progress'), which helps distinguish it from a simple listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_certifications' or 'get_certification_campaign', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to certifications (e.g., 'list_certifications', 'get_certification_campaign'), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or when it should be preferred. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is mentioned.

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