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 profile, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, irreversible effects, error handling, or confirmation prompts. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. It avoids redundancy and uses minimal sentences, making it efficient. However, the lack of behavioral or usage information slightly limits its completeness, but it's well-structured for its content.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters adequately but fails to address critical context like deletion consequences, error responses, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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: it clarifies that profile_id is a UUID for the profile to delete and explains tsg_id as an optional TSG ID or named alias with a default. With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensates well by providing essential semantic details 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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a syslog server profile by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., scm_delete_address, scm_delete_security_rule) beyond mentioning the specific resource type, which is adequate but not fully distinguishing.

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 other deletion tools or related operations like scm_get_syslog_server_profile. It mentions the parameters but lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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