SailPoint MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('List identity profiles') but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether results are paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. The parenthetical clarification adds useful context without being verbose. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a list operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (array of profiles? what fields?), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite offset/limit parameters, and provides no context about typical usage patterns. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how filters/sorters work, typical limit values, or pagination strategy. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance understanding beyond the structured data.

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 ('identity profiles'), with additional clarifying context about what identity profiles are ('configurations for how identities are created/managed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_identity_profile' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_identities' or 'list_access_profiles' beyond the resource type.

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 when to use 'list_identity_profiles' versus 'get_identity_profile' (singular retrieval), 'list_identities' (actual identities vs. profiles), or 'search' (more flexible querying). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

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