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 read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status output includes (e.g., pending, success, failure). For a tool with no annotations, 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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining parameters. It's front-loaded with the main function and uses bullet-like 'Args:' for clarity. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured with separate lines for each parameter.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling. For a tool checking job status in a complex SCM system, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 'job_id' as 'The job UUID returned by scm_commit or another async operation' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias. Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, but doesn't fully detail parameter formats or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 the status of an SCM job (e.g. a commit job).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an SCM job'), and provides an example ('e.g. a commit job') for context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_jobs' or 'scm_commit', which would be needed for a score of 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 implies usage by referencing 'job UUID returned by scm_commit or another async operation,' suggesting it's for checking async job results. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_list_jobs' or direct status checks in other tools, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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