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 only states the basic retrieval action without addressing critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the UUID doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.

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 complexity (retrieval operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'service object' entails, what data is returned, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some value by explaining that service_id is a 'UUID of the service object' and tsg_id is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, lacking details on UUID format, TSG ID meaning, or how the default SCM_TSG_ID works.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single service object by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get' tools like scm_get_service_group or scm_get_address, which have similar patterns but target different resources.

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 sibling tools like scm_list_services for listing multiple services or scm_create_service for creating new ones, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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