cortex-mcp

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 'convenience wrapper' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., does it perform a lookup first, is it slower, does it have the same side effects as 'cortex_run_analyzer'). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'run' actually does (e.g., starts a job, returns results).

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 key information ('Run an analyzer by name') and adds clarifying context ('convenience wrapper'). There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters that performs an action ('run'). It doesn't explain what 'run' means operationally, what the output might be, or how it relates to siblings like 'cortex_get_job_report'. For a mutation-like tool in a security context (Cortex), more behavioral context is needed.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'analyzerName' is used instead of ID. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra semantic 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 action ('Run an analyzer') and the key differentiator ('by name instead of ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'cortex_run_analyzer' (which presumably uses ID) or 'cortex_analyze_observable', leaving some ambiguity about exact sibling differentiation.

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 context with 'convenience wrapper', suggesting it's an alternative to ID-based methods, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'cortex_run_analyzer' or other siblings. It provides some implied guidance but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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