scm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, what 'recent' means, or the format/structure of returned jobs. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be better integrated. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like pagination, ordering, or error handling. The presence of an output schema elevates it from a 2 to a 3.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does so effectively. It explains both parameters: 'parent_id' filters child jobs by parent UUID, and 'tsg_id' specifies a TSG ID with a default value. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles ('Parent Id', 'Tsg Id'), though it doesn't explain TSG ID format or provide examples.

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 'List recent SCM jobs' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SCM jobs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scm_get_job_status' (which retrieves status for a specific job) by focusing on listing multiple jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'scm_list_addresses' 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when filtering by parent_id is appropriate, or how this differs from other job-related tools like 'scm_get_job_status'. The parameter descriptions imply filtering capabilities but offer no usage context.

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