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 full burden. 'List repository scans' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, default behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no scans exist. The description is too minimal for a tool with potential complexity.

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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete for a list operation tool. The description doesn't explain what 'repository scans' are, what data is returned, or how results are structured. For a tool that likely returns multiple items, more 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%, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Filter by project ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List repository scans' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repository scans), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scan_connections' or 'get_scan_status'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what 'scans' refers to in this context.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, this leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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