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 any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 with minimal waste. However, the Args section formatting could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as separate documentation.

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) but zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information but lacks important context. For a list operation with folder scoping, it should mention more about the expected output format, error conditions, or relationship to other list tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 documentation. The description's Args section adds meaningful semantics: it explains 'folder' scopes the query and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default value. However, it doesn't explain what format 'folder' should be (path? name?), what TSG_ID represents, or what happens with null tsg_id. The description compensates somewhat but not fully.

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 'List service group objects in a folder' which provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('service group objects') with scoping ('in a folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_get_service_group' (singular get) and 'scm_create_service_group' (create), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'scm_list_services' or 'scm_list_address_groups'.

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 (like needing folder access), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar list operations for other resource types. The Args section explains parameters but doesn't provide usage context.

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