scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (especially since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. It's concise with no wasted words, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed to improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 (a read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral context like whether it's idempotent or safe. For a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, more detail is needed to fully guide an agent.

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 both parameters: 'tag_id' as 'UUID of the tag' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic types, but doesn't fully cover nuances like UUID format or what 'TSG' stands for. Given the coverage gap, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: 'Get a single tag by UUID.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single tag'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'scm_list_tags' or other 'get' tools, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'scm_list_tags' for listing multiple tags or 'scm_get_*' tools for other resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The only implicit guidance is that you need a specific tag UUID.

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