scm-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'Create[s]' without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a write operation requiring permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The parameter details add some context but lack overall behavioral transparency.

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 with the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging server 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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description does a decent job explaining inputs but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover the return value, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like idempotency, leaving gaps for a creation tool with no structured support.

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 compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters: 'name' (unique), 'folder' (location), 'server' (list with required/optional fields like transport and port defaults), and 'tsg_id' (optional with default). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail 'folder' format or 'server' dict structure more.

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 syslog server profile'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_syslog_server_profile' (read) and 'scm_delete_syslog_server_profile' (delete), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools (e.g., 'scm_create_log_forwarding_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies creation, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a folder first), when not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools like 'scm_create_log_forwarding_profile' or 'scm_update_syslog_server_profile' (if exists).

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