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 'Delete' implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent, side effects on dependent configurations, or expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral consequences, error conditions, or integration with commit workflows (suggested by sibling 'scm_commit'), leaving the agent under-informed for safe invocation.

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 both parameters: 'category_id' as 'UUID of the URL category to delete' and 'tsg_id' with its optional nature and default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could 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 custom URL category by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_create_url_category' and 'scm_get_url_category'. 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 siblings include 'scm_delete_url_category' and 'scm_get_url_category', the description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, such as needing to commit changes after deletion.

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