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 a read-only action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the rule doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief 'Args' section. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear, though it could be slightly more polished by integrating the parameter explanations into a single cohesive 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 of a read operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, authentication needs, and how the tool interacts with the system. For a tool in a security management context, this is a significant gap in providing enough context for safe and effective use.

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 meaning by explaining 'rule_id' as 'UUID of the QoS rule' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This clarifies the purpose of both parameters beyond their schema titles, but it doesn't provide format details, examples, or constraints, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 QoS rule by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('QoS rule') with the identifier method ('by UUID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_qos_rule' vs 'scm_list_qos_rules' or 'scm_create_qos_rule', though the naming pattern implies this is a read operation for a single item.

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_qos_rule' instead of 'scm_list_qos_rules' for listing multiple rules or 'scm_update_qos_rule' for modifications. The only implied usage is retrieving a specific rule by UUID, but no context or exclusions are stated.

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