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 read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return object contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, warranting a low score.

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 it's structured for quick comprehension. A point is deducted as the 'Args' formatting could be slightly more integrated, but overall it's 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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the return value (e.g., what fields the schedule object includes), error cases, or dependencies like authentication. For a read operation with no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'schedule_id' is a UUID and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details, so the description compensates somewhat but doesn't fully explain parameter formats or usage. This meets the baseline for partial compensation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single schedule object by UUID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_list_schedules' (which retrieves multiple) and 'scm_create_schedule' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools for different resource types, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving a specific schedule by UUID, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the UUID), when to use 'scm_list_schedules' instead for browsing, or any context-specific constraints. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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