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 offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value contains (especially critical since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 details. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by explicitly labeling the 'Args' section as part of the description rather than assuming it's recognized as such.

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 (a read operation with parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, potential errors, or behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite covering parameter semantics.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: 'profile_id' is explained as 'UUID of the syslog server profile', and 'tsg_id' is clarified as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by providing essential semantic information beyond the bare schema.

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 syslog server profile by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_syslog_server_profiles' or 'scm_create_syslog_server_profile', which would be needed for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'scm_list_syslog_server_profiles' for listing multiple profiles or 'scm_create_syslog_server_profile' for creating new ones, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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