scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'create' operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the profile becomes active immediately, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. The example for 'flood' parameter hints at structure but doesn't fully describe behavior.

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 but not optimally structured. The opening sentence is clear, but the parameter documentation uses a mix of brief and detailed explanations (good for 'flood', sparse for others). Some sentences like 'Controls SYN, UDP, ICMP, and other flood thresholds' are useful, but overall organization could be more front-loaded with critical usage info.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it documents parameters well, it lacks crucial context: what a zone protection profile is, how it integrates with the system, what happens on success/failure, and expected return values. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without external knowledge.

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 semantics for all 6 parameters: explains 'name' must be unique, 'folder' is where to create, 'description' is optional, gives detailed examples for 'flood' and 'reconnaissance' (including nested structure), and clarifies 'tsg_id' default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose as 'Create a zone protection profile' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_zone_protection_profile' (read) and 'scm_delete_zone_protection_profile' (delete) by the 'create' action, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description text itself.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder), when not to use it, or what happens after creation. While siblings include various 'create_' tools, the description offers no comparative context.

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