scm-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 states this is a creation tool but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on success/failure, or any system constraints. The mention of 'Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID' for tsg_id is helpful context but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While somewhat lengthy due to parameter details, every sentence adds value. The parameter documentation is organized with clear labels and formatting, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job documenting parameters but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what a decryption profile is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or system implications. The parameter documentation is strong, but overall completeness is limited.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains what each parameter represents, indicates which are optional, provides default values, and details the structure of complex dictionary parameters with specific keys and enum values for ssl_forward_proxy.min_version.

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's purpose with the verb 'Create' and resource 'decryption profile', making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'scm_create_decryption_rule' or explain what distinguishes a decryption profile from other security profile types in the system.

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. With many sibling tools for creating different security profiles (decryption_rule, anti_spyware_profile, etc.), there's no indication of when a decryption profile is appropriate versus other profile types or what prerequisites might be needed.

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