scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a tag' which implies a write operation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether the tag name must be globally unique, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each parameter explanation is succinct and adds necessary context without redundancy. However, the initial 'Create a tag.' is overly terse and could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 clear semantics for all 5 parameters: 'name' as a unique identifier, 'folder' as the location, 'color' with examples, 'comments' as a description, and 'tsg_id' with a default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints like folder paths.

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 the resource 'tag', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_update_tag' or 'scm_get_tag', which would require mentioning it's for initial creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 like 'scm_update_tag' for modifying existing tags or 'scm_delete_tag' for removal. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing folder, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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