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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'address objects' entail. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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. The 'Args:' section efficiently explains parameters without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a list tool, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating examples into the main text.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall it's minimal for a list operation in a security 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 adds meaningful semantics: 'folder' scopes the query with examples ('All', 'Texas'), 'name' is an optional exact-match filter, and 'tsg_id' defaults to 'SCM_TSG_ID'. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all nuances (e.g., folder format constraints).

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: 'List address objects in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('address objects'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'scm_get_address' (singular retrieval) and 'scm_create_address' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'scm_list_address_groups' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., folder existence), compare it to other list tools (e.g., 'scm_list_address_groups'), or specify use cases. The only implied context is filtering by folder, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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