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 describes a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a list 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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints 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 the tool's low complexity (list operation), 2 parameters, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination) and doesn't fully explain parameter semantics, leaving room for improvement.

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 descriptions. The description adds value by explaining 'folder' scopes the query and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default, but it doesn't detail parameter formats (e.g., folder syntax) or constraints. This partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 application group objects in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('application group objects'), and scope ('in a folder'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'scm_list_applications' or 'scm_list_application_filters', which would require a 5.

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: it mentions scoping by folder and includes an optional TSG ID parameter. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools for different resource types), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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