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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, describe authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section. There's no wasted text, and it's easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main flow, preventing a perfect score.

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), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool in this context, it should provide more comprehensive guidance to be fully helpful.

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 some parameter semantics: it explains that 'profile_id' is a 'UUID of the URL access profile' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this only partially compensates—it doesn't detail UUID format, TSG alias examples, or error cases. The baseline is lower due to poor schema coverage, but the description provides moderate value.

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 URL access profile by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('URL access profile'), and the UUID qualification distinguishes it from list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools for different resource types among siblings, which would require a 5.

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_url_access_profiles' for listing multiple profiles or 'scm_create_url_access_profile' for creation, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Args' section describes parameters but not usage context.

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