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 this is a deletion operation, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent configurations).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., confirmation, error handling), output format, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how to obtain rule UUIDs from 'scm_list_pbf_rules').

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'rule_id' is explained as 'UUID of the PBF rule to delete', and 'tsg_id' is clarified as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't specify UUID format or TSG alias examples.

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 ('a PBF rule by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scm_get_pbf_rule' (read) and 'scm_update_pbf_rule' (modify). It precisely defines the operation without ambiguity.

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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the rule's UUID), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'scm_list_pbf_rules' to find rules first.

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