SD Elements 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 only states the action without mentioning permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'scan connection' (e.g., active/inactive status, metadata included). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with system resources.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scan connections' are, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a context with many siblings and potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its full use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 ('List') and resource ('repository scan connections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'list_projects', which would require specifying what makes scan connections distinct from other listable entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_scans' and 'list_projects', the description doesn't clarify if this is for listing connections related to scans, scans themselves, or something else, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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