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, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a brief explanation of decryption profiles, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and domain context. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance considerations, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 explains both parameters: 'folder' as 'Folder name to scope the query' and 'tsg_id' with its optionality and default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., folder naming rules).

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 ('decryption profiles in a folder'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_decryption_profile' (singular get) and 'scm_create_decryption_profile' (create). It also explains what decryption profiles are, adding domain context.

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 implies usage by specifying 'in a folder' and providing parameter details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_get_decryption_profile' or 'scm_search'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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