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 mentions the tool lists profiles and explains what DNS security profiles do, but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The explanation of DNS security profiles adds some context but doesn't fully address behavioral traits.

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: purpose statement, explanation of DNS security profiles, and parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose first. The structure is clear but could be slightly more efficient in the parameter documentation section.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information. However, for a list operation in what appears to be a security management system, it should ideally include more about authentication requirements, pagination, or error conditions to be complete.

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 documents both parameters: 'folder' as 'Folder name to scope the query' and 'tsg_id' with its default value. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or provide examples. The description adds basic semantics but doesn't fully compensate for the schema 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 with the verb 'List' and resource 'DNS security profiles in a folder', and explains what DNS security profiles do. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list' tools like scm_list_addresses or scm_list_anti_spyware_profiles 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 implies usage context by specifying 'in a folder' and mentioning the optional tsg_id parameter with its default. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites for successful invocation.

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