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 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or describe any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the UUID doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the purpose from parameter details more clearly.

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 covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context about behavior, error handling, return format, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it inadequate for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 documentation. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'group_id' as 'UUID of the service group' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with default behavior. However, it doesn't fully explain what a TSG is, how aliases work, or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single service group by UUID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_service_groups' or 'scm_get_service', which would require more specific scope clarification.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'scm_list_service_groups' for listing multiple groups or 'scm_get_service' for individual services, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieving a single service group.

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