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 states this is a list operation with filtering, but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds helpful context about what roles represent. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading more usage guidance.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list format, fields returned), pagination strategy, or error handling. For a list tool in a complex identity management context with many siblings, more completeness would be expected.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering' (which aligns with the 'filters' parameter) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 ('roles'), and adds that it includes 'optional filtering'. It distinguishes roles as 'bundle access profiles and entitlements for business functions', which provides helpful context about what roles are. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_role' or 'search', 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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_role' (for a specific role), 'search' (for broader queries), or 'list_access_profiles' (for related resources). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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