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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. No wasted sentences. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks context on authentication, error handling, return format, or system behavior. It's minimally adequate for a simple read tool but misses details that would help an agent use it correctly in practice.

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 context: 'profile_id' is a 'UUID of the file blocking profile' (clarifying format and purpose), and 'tsg_id' is 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, though it doesn't explain 'TSG' or where to find these IDs.

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 file blocking profile by UUID.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('file blocking profile') + identifier method ('by UUID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_list_file_blocking_profiles' (list multiple) and 'scm_create_file_blocking_profile' (create). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'file blocking profile' means in context, which prevents 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid UUID), compare it to list operations (e.g., 'scm_list_file_blocking_profiles' for browsing), or specify error conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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