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 states it lists 'active' reviews, implying a filter, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (though schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' means operationally. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 action ('List active certification reviews') and adds clarifying context ('Certifications are access review campaigns') without waste. Every word earns its place, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the resource type but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. For a list tool with structured inputs, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering via 'active', which loosely relates to the 'filters' parameter but without syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('List') and resource ('active certification reviews'), with additional clarifying context that certifications are access review campaigns. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_certification' (singular) and 'list_certification_campaigns' (campaigns vs reviews), though not explicitly. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_certification' (for a single review) or 'list_certification_campaigns' (for campaigns). The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, offering only a basic functional statement without usage context.

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