scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the profile doesn't exist. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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. The Args section is structured but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined by integrating parameter details into the main description.

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, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors) and output information. For a simple retrieval tool, it's viable but has clear gaps in context.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'profile_id' is the UUID of the profile, and 'tsg_id' is an optional TSG ID or named alias with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't explain format details (e.g., UUID structure).

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 with 'Get a single vulnerability protection profile by UUID', specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('vulnerability protection profile'), and key identifier ('UUID'). It distinguishes from list operations like 'scm_list_vulnerability_profiles' by focusing on single retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations for different resource types.

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?

Usage is implied through the parameter descriptions: 'profile_id' is required for retrieval, and 'tsg_id' defaults to SCM_TSG_ID. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'scm_list_vulnerability_profiles' for multiple profiles) or any prerequisites like authentication needs.

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