scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('List'), but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what the output format is (though output schema exists), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some context about application objects but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 three sentences and a parameter section. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds context about applications, and the third clarifies scope. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more concise.

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 an output schema exists, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a list operation with no annotations, it should mention pagination, sorting, or response structure. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but operational guidance is incomplete.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: 'folder' is explained as scoping the query with examples ('All', 'Predefined'), and 'tsg_id' is described as optional with a default value. However, it doesn't explain what TSG ID represents or provide format requirements beyond the basic type information in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('application objects in a folder'), and explains what applications are ('building blocks of application-based security policy'). It distinguishes the scope by mentioning it returns 'both predefined and custom application objects'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like 'scm_list_application_filters' or 'scm_list_application_groups'.

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 on when to use this tool. It mentions the folder parameter can scope queries (e.g., 'All', 'Predefined'), but doesn't explain when to choose specific folders or when to use alternatives like 'scm_get_application' for single objects or 'scm_search' for broader queries. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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