scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the profile is immediately active, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description lacks critical context for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., success response, profile ID), error handling, or system behavior. Given the complexity of creating a security profile, more context about the operation's impact is needed.

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 adds meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: 'name' as a unique identifier, 'folder' as the location, 'description' as optional details, and 'tsg_id' with a default value. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, providing practical context for each parameter.

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 tool creates a vulnerability protection security profile, specifying the verb 'Create' and resource 'vulnerability protection security profile'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_vulnerability_profile' (read) and 'scm_delete_vulnerability_profile' (delete), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'scm_create_anti_spyware_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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a folder to exist, or when to choose this over other profile creation tools (e.g., 'scm_create_anti_spyware_profile'). It only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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