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-only listing operation, which is safe, but lacks details on critical behaviors: no mention of pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned list. The description adds basic context about what HTTP server profiles are, but fails to cover operational aspects needed for reliable tool 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 well-structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of HTTP server profiles, and then parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded. A score of 5 is reserved for exceptional brevity with no room for improvement, but this is highly efficient.

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 context: no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but the absence of annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency keeps it at a baseline score.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: 'folder' is described as 'Folder name to scope the query,' and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias. Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail allowed values, formats, or constraints (e.g., folder naming conventions), keeping it at a baseline level.

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 HTTP server profiles in a folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('HTTP server profiles'), and adds context about their function ('define HTTP endpoints that receive log data from log forwarding profiles'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_http_server_profile' or 'scm_create_http_server_profile', which would be needed for a score of 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 usage guidance. It mentions that the tool lists profiles 'in a folder,' implying a scoping context, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'scm_get_http_server_profile' for a single profile or 'scm_create_http_server_profile' for creation). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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