scm-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It indicates a destructive 'Delete' action but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., breaking references), or returns confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 action. The 'Args' section is structured but slightly verbose; it could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly polished.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure responses, error conditions), security implications, and system impact. Given the complexity of deletion operations, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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: 'profile_id' as 'UUID of the zone protection profile to delete' and 'tsg_id' with its optionality and default. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure) for a perfect score.

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 resource ('zone protection profile by UUID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_zone_protection_profile' (read) and 'scm_create_zone_protection_profile' (create), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete tools for different resources, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile), exclusions, or related tools like 'scm_list_zone_protection_profiles' for selection. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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