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. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. 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 with a clear main sentence and a structured 'Args' section. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the parameter explanations are concise. However, the 'Args' formatting could be more integrated, and there's minor redundancy in stating defaults already implied by schema.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter roles but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output structure, leaving room for improvement in completeness for a list tool.

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 meaning by explaining that 'folder' scopes the query and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default, which clarifies their roles beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats (e.g., folder syntax, TSG ID examples) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('List') and resource ('anti-spyware security profiles in a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., scm_list_addresses, scm_list_application_filters) beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning the 'folder' parameter to scope the query, but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to other list tools or search functions (e.g., scm_search). No exclusions or contextual usage details are provided.

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