scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the profile doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error responses) and output details. For a simple retrieval tool, it's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.

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 anti-spyware profile' and tsg_id as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure).

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 ('Get a single anti-spyware profile') and resource ('by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like scm_list_anti_spyware_profiles (which lists multiple) and scm_create_anti_spyware_profile (which creates). The verb 'Get' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scm_list_anti_spyware_profiles or scm_search. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific profile by ID, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing the UUID) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk retrieval).

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