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. It indicates this is a read operation ('List'), which is safe, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no snippets exist. The description adds some context about snippets but lacks operational details.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by explanatory context about snippets, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and 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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, context, and parameter semantics adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral transparency (e.g., pagination hints) for a list operation.

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 description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'tsg_id' with its purpose (TSG ID or named alias) and default behavior (defaults to SCM_TSG_ID), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare title. However, it doesn't explain what TSG ID represents 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all configuration snippets in Strata Cloud Manager'), and provides a helpful explanation of what snippets are and their purpose. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'scm_get_snippet' (which retrieves a specific snippet) and 'scm_create_snippet' (which creates new snippets).

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 context by explaining snippets are reusable configuration elements for folders or devices, suggesting this tool is for inventory/overview purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'scm_get_snippet' for specific snippets or 'scm_search' for filtered searches, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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