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 read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if UUID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 clearly, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, and the structure (purpose then args) is logical. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating args into a single paragraph).

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 lacks information on return values, error conditions, or system context (e.g., what a log forwarding profile is). For a tool with zero structured coverage, more explanatory content 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics: it explains 'profile_id' as 'UUID of the log forwarding profile' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—e.g., no details on UUID format or TSG alias examples. With 2 parameters, this partial info warrants a baseline 3.

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 log forwarding profile by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('log forwarding profile'), and key identifier ('by UUID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_log_forwarding_profiles' (list vs. get single), though the distinction is implied by the naming pattern.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'profile_id' parameter but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile) or contrast with list operations. The sibling tools include 'scm_list_log_forwarding_profiles', but no comparison is made.

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