scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'retrieves' a snippet, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the snippet doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The 'Args:' section is structured but could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more front-loaded with key usage information.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and how this tool fits into the broader SCM context. For a retrieval tool in a complex system, this is insufficient.

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 explains 'snippet_id' as 'The UUID of the snippet to retrieve' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify what TSG is or provide format examples for UUIDs, leaving some 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single snippet by its UUID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_snippets' or 'scm_get_snippet' vs 'scm_get_address', though the UUID focus provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'scm_list_snippets' for multiple snippets or other 'scm_get_*' tools for different resources. It mentions the 'tsg_id' default but offers no context about when this parameter is needed or what TSG represents.

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