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 which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when the UUID doesn't exist. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameters. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first, followed by parameter details. No unnecessary information is included, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly cleaner.

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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this tool relates to other URL category operations. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 adds value by explaining that 'category_id' is a 'UUID of the URL category' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. However, it doesn't explain what TSG stands for, where to find these IDs, or provide examples of valid UUID formats.

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 resource 'a single custom URL category by UUID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'scm_list_url_categories' which retrieves multiple categories, though the 'single' vs 'list' naming convention provides some implicit differentiation.

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_url_categories' or 'scm_create_url_category'. It mentions the required parameter but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for retrieving a single category versus listing multiple categories.

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