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 describes the return format ('names and env var aliases') and the existence of a 'default' profile, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second explains output and usage, third clarifies default behavior. Each sentence adds essential information, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output context well, though lacks behavioral details like safety or performance considerations.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('configured TSG profiles available to the server'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns 'names and env var aliases' for TSGs specifically, unlike other list tools for different resource types.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: to get TSG profile names for use as 'tsg_id' arguments in other SCM tools, and clarifies that the 'default' profile is used when tsg_id is omitted. This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives.

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