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 but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. The second sentence explains what syslog server profiles are, which adds some context but not operational behavior.

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, context about syslog profiles, and parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. The Args section is clear but could be more integrated into the flow.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. The output schema exists (per context signals), so return values needn't be explained. However, for a list operation with no annotations, more guidance on usage and behavior would improve completeness.

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 both parameters (folder and tsg_id) with brief explanations, including that tsg_id is optional with a default. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., folder naming conventions) or provide examples, leaving gaps despite covering both parameters.

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 'syslog server profiles in a folder', providing specific action and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_syslog_server_profile' (singular get) and 'scm_create_syslog_server_profile' (create), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'scm_list_log_forwarding_profiles'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this versus 'scm_get_syslog_server_profile' (for single profile details) or 'scm_list_log_forwarding_profiles' (for related profiles). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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