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 mentions that EDLs are used in security policy, hinting at read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical traits like whether this is a safe read operation, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of EDLs and parameter details. It avoids redundancy and uses clear sections, though the EDL explanation, while useful, slightly extends length beyond minimal necessity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, pagination) and does not explain the return format, relying on the output schema. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in completeness.

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' scopes the query, and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., folder naming conventions).

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'), resource ('external dynamic lists'), and scope ('in a folder'), with additional context about what EDLs are. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_external_dynamic_list' (singular get) and 'scm_create_external_dynamic_list' (create), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 the folder parameter to scope the query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'scm_get_external_dynamic_list' for a single EDL or 'scm_search' for broader queries). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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