scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially important since there's no output schema). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence states what the tool does, and the Args section efficiently documents parameters. No wasted words or redundancy.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it documents parameters adequately, it fails to describe the return value format (critical for a 'get' operation), error conditions, authentication requirements, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more complete context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'folder_id' as 'The UUID of the folder to retrieve' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with default behavior. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what a TSG ID represents in this context or provide format examples for the UUID.

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 with 'Get a single folder by its UUID' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('folder') with a clear identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_list_folders' (which retrieves multiple folders) and 'scm_create_folder'/'scm_update_folder'/'scm_delete_folder' (which modify folders). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's a read operation versus those modification tools.

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 when to use 'scm_get_folder' versus 'scm_list_folders' (for retrieving multiple folders) or other folder-related tools. The parameter documentation implies usage context but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations.

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