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 offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or how it interacts with the system. The mention of 'tsg_id' defaulting to 'SCM_TSG_ID' is helpful 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each parameter earns its place by providing necessary context. The formatting with bullet-like structure for 'rules' enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks crucial behavioral context about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and what constitutes successful creation. The absence of output information is particularly problematic.

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 compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters. It clarifies that 'name' must be unique, 'folder' specifies location, 'description' is optional, 'rules' includes detailed structure with nested fields, and 'tsg_id' has a default value. This adds substantial meaning 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 'file blocking profile', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a creation tool among siblings that include various other create/update/delete operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools like 'scm_create_anti_spyware_profile'.

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 including 'scm_get_file_blocking_profile', 'scm_delete_file_blocking_profile', and 'scm_list_file_blocking_profiles', there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for creation versus retrieval or deletion.

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