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 insight. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The default value for 'tsg_id' is mentioned, but overall behavioral context is lacking 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first in a clear sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Each parameter explanation is brief and to the point, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main text, but overall it's efficient.

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 the complexity (a creation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks critical context: no information on return values (e.g., success confirmation, created object details), error handling, or behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool that modifies state, this is a significant gap.

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. It provides brief explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Unique name for the service group', 'Folder to create the group in'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., naming conventions for 'name', folder path structure) or elaborate on 'members' beyond 'List of service object names', leaving gaps in semantic clarity.

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 ('service group'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_create_service' or 'scm_update_service_group' by focusing on creation of groups rather than individual services or updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools beyond the resource type.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing folder), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing groups), or refer to sibling tools like 'scm_update_service_group' or 'scm_get_service_group'. Usage is implied only through the action and parameters.

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