scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it fails to detail critical aspects like whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., confirmation prompts, error responses), prerequisites, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a complex system management context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'profile_id' as the UUID to delete and 'tsg_id' as an optional TSG ID with a default. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal titles, though it could elaborate on format or validation rules for the UUID.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('HTTP server profile by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scm_create_http_server_profile' or 'scm_get_http_server_profile'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when deletion is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., ensuring no dependencies exist). It mentions a default for 'tsg_id' but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool naming patterns alone.

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