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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or any rate limits. It provides basic parameter info but lacks crucial behavioral context for a creation 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 organized parameter documentation. Each parameter explanation is concise and focused. While efficient, the 'Args:' section formatting could be slightly more integrated with the main description text.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what a log forwarding profile is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or return values. The parameter documentation is strong, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 parameter documentation. It explains all 6 parameters, their purposes, optionality, defaults, and even provides specific structure details for the complex 'match_list' parameter. This adds significant 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 action ('Create') and resource ('log forwarding profile'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_log_forwarding_profile' or 'scm_delete_log_forwarding_profile' beyond the obvious verb difference, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this creation operation is appropriate versus using other log forwarding profile tools. The only implicit guidance comes from the tool name itself.

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