scm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'service objects' entail. This is a significant gap 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (list operation), 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context and doesn't fully address the 0% schema coverage, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 adds basic semantics for both parameters (e.g., 'folder' scopes the query, 'tsg_id' is optional with a default), which is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—it lacks details like format constraints or what 'TSG ID' means.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('service objects in a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., scm_list_service_groups) beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other list tools (e.g., scm_list_service_groups) or search tools (e.g., scm_search), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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