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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would improve completeness for a read operation.

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: 'group_id' as the 'UUID of the address group' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure) 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a single address group by UUID.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('address group'), and key identifier ('by UUID'), making it distinct from list operations like 'scm_list_address_groups'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools (e.g., 'scm_get_address'), which slightly limits clarity.

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. It mentions retrieving by UUID but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing address group) or contrast it with sibling tools like 'scm_list_address_groups' for multiple groups or 'scm_get_address' for individual addresses. This leaves usage context implied at best.

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