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 indicates this is a read operation ('List') and explains what URL access profiles do, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description adds some context about the resource type 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, explanatory paragraph, and parameter details in a labeled 'Args' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the explanatory paragraph could be slightly more concise.

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), no annotations, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a good job explaining purpose, parameters, and resource context. It could be more complete by mentioning behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases, but covers the essentials adequately.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'folder' is explained as 'Folder name to scope the query', and 'tsg_id' is described with its optional nature and default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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 specific action ('List URL access profiles'), resource ('in a folder'), and provides a detailed explanation of what URL access profiles are ('define what happens when users visit websites...'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_url_access_profile' (singular get) and 'scm_create_url_access_profile' (create).

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 by specifying the 'folder' parameter to scope the query, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scm_get_url_access_profile' for individual profiles or 'scm_list_url_categories' for related resources. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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