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, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or any rate limits. The description provides basic parameter info but misses critical 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 brief purpose statement followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with context about what a 'service object' represents in this system.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks broader context. It doesn't explain what a 'service object' is, how it fits into the system, what happens after creation, or error conditions. Given the complexity, more completeness would be helpful.

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 and 8 parameters (4 required), the description compensates excellently by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing examples (e.g., protocol values 'tcp' or 'udp', port format '8080-8090', defaults for tsg_id). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 ('a service object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'create' siblings like scm_create_address or scm_create_security_rule, which would require mentioning what distinguishes a 'service object' from those other resources.

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. With many sibling tools (including other 'create' operations and scm_update_service), the description lacks any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflows that would help an agent choose appropriately.

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