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' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on existing configurations), or response behavior (e.g., success/failure indicators). 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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter explanations, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter list could be slightly more concise by grouping similar categories.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral details (e.g., what happens after creation, error handling) and doesn't reference sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'Unique name for the profile', 'URL categories to allow (optional)'), adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'folder' or 'tsg_id'), preventing a perfect score.

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 ('URL access (filtering) profile'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_url_category' or 'scm_get_url_access_profile', which would be needed for a perfect 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, such as when to create a URL access profile versus other profile types (e.g., anti-spyware, vulnerability) or when to use update/delete operations. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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