scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a profile ID). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 an Args section. Each parameter explanation is concise and to the point. There's no wasted text, though the formatting as a docstring might be slightly verbose. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameter details.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description does a good job on parameters but lacks completeness in other areas. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, errors) or output details. For a creation tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: explains 'name' must be unique, 'folder' is the target location, 'server' requires specific fields with defaults and options, 'description' is optional, 'tag_registration' has a default, and 'tsg_id' has a default value. This adds significant 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 tool creates an HTTP server profile, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like scm_get_http_server_profile (read) and scm_delete_http_server_profile (delete), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like scm_update_http_server_profile (which doesn't exist in the list, suggesting creation is the primary method). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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