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 the tool deletes a service object, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on dependent configurations), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical behavioral details like confirmation prompts, return values, error cases, and integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 explains that service_id is a 'UUID of the service object to delete' and tsg_id is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't clarify what TSG stands for or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a service object by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (like scm_delete_service_group) beyond the resource name, which is implied but not stated.

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 (e.g., scm_delete_service_group for groups, scm_update_service for modifications, or scm_get_service for checking existence). The description only lists parameters without context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflows.

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