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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a single HTTP server profile,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. There's no wasted text, and the information is organized for quick comprehension. A minor deduction for not integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall efficient.

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 explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output details. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation in more complex scenarios.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'profile_id: UUID of the HTTP server profile' and 'tsg_id: Optional TSG ID or named alias. Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't cover validation rules or examples, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 HTTP server profile by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('HTTP server profile'), and key identifier ('by UUID'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'get' tools (e.g., scm_get_address, scm_get_folder) beyond the resource type, missing sibling 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_http_server_profiles for listing profiles or scm_create_http_server_profile for creation, nor does it specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual constraints. The absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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