scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation operation (implying mutation), describes the recurring fetch behavior for list types, and mentions default values. However, it doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate names. The behavioral context is adequate but incomplete 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. Each sentence adds value, though the 'list_type' explanation is quite detailed (which is necessary given complexity). It could be slightly more concise in the recurring frequency examples, but overall efficiently communicates essential information.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job on parameters but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or system behavior aspects. The parameter documentation is excellent, but other aspects are under-specified for a creation tool.

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, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 4 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents, provides format examples for the complex 'list_type' object, documents the optional nature of 'tsg_id', and specifies default values. This goes well beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 creates an external dynamic list (EDL), specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'external dynamic list'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_update_external_dynamic_list' and 'scm_delete_external_dynamic_list' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create_' tools in the same domain.

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 when needing to create an EDL with specific configurations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_update_external_dynamic_list' or 'scm_create_folder'. It mentions the 'tsg_id' defaults to SCM_TSG_ID, providing some context, but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information.

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