scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the UUID doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 (simple retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output details. For a basic 'get' operation, this is borderline acceptable but has clear gaps.

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: 'app_id' as 'UUID of the application object' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify what 'TSG' stands for or provide examples of 'named alias', leaving some ambiguity.

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 application object by UUID.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('application object'), and key identifier ('UUID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_applications' or 'scm_get_application_filter', which would be needed for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'scm_list_applications' for listing multiple applications or 'scm_get_application_filter' for filtered retrieval. The only contextual hint is the parameter description for 'tsg_id', but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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