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 mentions 'aggregate queries for analytics' but doesn't describe what the tool returns, whether it's read-only or mutative, performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every element ('perform aggregate queries', 'search indices', 'analytics', 'counts, groupings') earns its place.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (aggregation results format), doesn't address behavioral aspects like read/write nature or error handling, and provides minimal context for a complex analytics tool. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'aggregate queries' and 'analytics' which aligns with the aggregation parameters, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool performs 'aggregate queries on search indices for analytics' with specific examples like 'counts, groupings, etc.' This provides a specific verb ('perform aggregate queries') and resource ('search indices') with purpose clarification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a related search function.

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 mentions 'analytics' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with the sibling 'search' tool. The agent receives no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references.

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