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 mentions creation but doesn't specify whether this is a write operation requiring permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or the expected 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated into the flow rather than listed as 'Args:'.

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 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks critical context like error conditions, permissions needed, or what the tool returns. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.

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 meaningful explanations for all 6 parameters, including examples for 'list_entries' and defaults for 'category_type' and 'tsg_id'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though some details like format constraints are still missing.

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 'custom URL category', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_url_access_profile' or 'scm_update_url_category', which would require more specific context about what makes this creation unique.

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_url_category' or 'scm_delete_url_category'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a folder must exist first, or when to choose 'URL List' vs 'Category Match'.

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