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 states this is a list operation (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. For a tool with no 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 three sentences: purpose statement, explanatory context, and parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated with the main description.

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 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains parameters well and states the purpose clearly, but lacks behavioral context about authentication, errors, or pagination that would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'folder' is clearly described as 'Folder name to scope the query,' and 'tsg_id' is explained as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('List'), resource ('log forwarding profiles'), and scope ('in a folder'), with the second sentence providing helpful context about what log forwarding profiles are. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_log_forwarding_profile' (singular get) and 'scm_create_log_forwarding_profile' (create).

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 through the folder parameter requirement and the explanation of what log forwarding profiles are, suggesting this is for retrieving configuration data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'scm_get_log_forwarding_profile' (for a specific profile) or 'scm_search' (for broader queries).

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