SailPoint MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'query syntax' but doesn't explain key behaviors like pagination (hinted at by 'searchAfter' in schema but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the results look like (no output schema). This is inadequate for a search tool with 6 parameters.

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 purpose ('Perform a search') and key resources. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise 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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits), usage context versus siblings, and result format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 6 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'query syntax' generically, but doesn't provide additional syntax details or examples beyond what's in the schema. 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 action ('Perform a search') and the target resources ('across identities, accounts, access profiles, roles, or entitlements'), with a specific mention of query syntax. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_aggregate' or the various 'list_' tools, which likely have different scopes or functionalities.

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 like 'search_aggregate' or the 'list_' tools (e.g., 'list_identities'). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the generic search capability.

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