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 the tool lists policies but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields), whether it's paginated (though schema hints at it), or any rate limits or permissions required. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List Separation of Duties (SOD) policies for compliance monitoring.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination/filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context. The schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent use without additional inference.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'limit', 'offset', and 'filters' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain filter syntax or default values). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Separation of Duties (SOD) policies for compliance monitoring.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('SOD policies'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_sod_policy' (singular) and 'list_sod_violations' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_access_profiles') beyond the resource name.

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_sod_policies' over 'get_sod_policy' (singular retrieval) or 'list_sod_violations' (related but different data), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for compliance monitoring. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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