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 a read-only fetch, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the profile doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. However, the formatting with bullet-like indentation could be slightly improved for readability.

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 complexity (a simple read operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details and output information. For a basic 'get' tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in transparency and guidelines.

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 decryption profile' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias. Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the UUID format and default behavior, though it doesn't fully detail all possible values or constraints.

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 decryption profile by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('decryption profile'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'scm_get_decryption_rule' or 'scm_list_decryption_profiles', which would require more specific differentiation.

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_decryption_profiles' for listing multiple profiles or 'scm_get_decryption_rule' for related resources. The only usage hint is the parameter explanation, which doesn't address tool selection.

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