scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states it 'Create[s] a DNS security profile' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a profile ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief purpose statement followed by parameter details. Each parameter explanation is efficient, though the botnet_domains example is slightly verbose but necessary for clarity. No wasted sentences.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It covers what to provide but not what happens during/after execution, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 5 parameters: 'name' as 'Unique name', 'folder' as 'Folder to create the profile in', 'description' as 'Optional description', 'botnet_domains' with a detailed example, and 'tsg_id' with default behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create' and resource 'DNS security profile', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_get_dns_security_profile' (read) and 'scm_delete_dns_security_profile' (delete) by its creation action, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 like updating or deleting profiles, or prerequisites such as required permissions or system state. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage instructions.

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