scm-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 structured 'Args:' section that efficiently explains parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but misses behavioral aspects like permissions, error cases, and return values. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in providing a fuller operational context.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: 'zone_id' is explained as 'UUID of the security zone', and 'tsg_id' is clarified as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, providing essential semantic information that aids correct usage, though it could detail format expectations (e.g., UUID format).

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 security zone by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scm_list_security_zones' by focusing on retrieving a single item rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools for different resource types, which prevents a perfect score.

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 when a specific security zone UUID is known, as opposed to listing all zones. It mentions the 'tsg_id' parameter defaults to 'SCM_TSG_ID', providing some context for when to override this. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_list_security_zones' or prerequisites such as authentication needs, keeping it at an implied level.

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