cortex-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens if the job isn't completed. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, earning its place by clearly stating what the tool does.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, response format) and doesn't leverage context from sibling tools. It's adequate for a basic read operation but could be more informative.

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% with one parameter 'jobId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Get' and resource 'artifacts (extracted observables/IOCs)' with context 'from a completed analysis job', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cortex_get_job or cortex_get_job_report, which might retrieve different aspects of job results.

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 implies usage by specifying 'from a completed analysis job', suggesting it should be used after job completion. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like cortex_get_job_report or mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be finished), leaving some ambiguity.

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