scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes a service group, implying a destructive operation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent configurations). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context like deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, 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 'group_id' is the UUID of the service group to delete and 'tsg_id' is an optional TSG ID or named alias defaulting to SCM_TSG_ID, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify what TSG ID represents 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a service group by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_delete_service' or 'scm_create_service_group'. It precisely defines what the tool does 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when deletion is appropriate versus updating or listing service groups. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or warnings about irreversible actions, which is critical for a destructive operation.

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