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 the action is 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though slightly fragmented.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output. It's minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but misses richer context needed for full 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 description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'profile_id' is explained as 'UUID of the zone protection profile', and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This clarifies the purpose and optionality of parameters beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 zone protection profile by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_zone_protection_profiles' or 'scm_get_zone_protection_profile' (if there were multiple get variants), though the UUID focus implies it's for retrieving a specific instance rather than listing.

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_zone_protection_profiles' for listing profiles or 'scm_create_zone_protection_profile' for creation, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this retrieval is appropriate.

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