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 such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (no output schema). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args:' section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential errors, or usage context. For a tool in this environment, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'profile_id' is explained as 'UUID of the DNS security profile,' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias. Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID.' This clarifies their purposes and default behavior, though it doesn't cover all possible details like format 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 DNS security profile by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('DNS security profile'), and key identifier ('by UUID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'scm_list_dns_security_profiles' beyond the singular vs. plural naming, which is why it's not a 5.

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 like 'scm_list_dns_security_profiles' for listing multiple profiles or 'scm_create_dns_security_profile' for creation. It mentions the parameters but doesn't explain usage context or prerequisites.

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