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 states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'list' entails (e.g., full details vs summaries). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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. The 'Args:' section adds parameter details without redundancy. While efficient, the lack of usage or behavioral context means some sentences might be missing rather than overly 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output explanation (though an output schema exists, so return values needn't be described). For a list tool with low schema support, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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: 'folder' scopes the query, and 'tsg_id' is optional with a default. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., folder naming conventions), what TSG ID represents, or how these affect the query, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 action ('List') and resource ('vulnerability protection profiles in a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_vulnerability_profile' or 'scm_list_tsg_profiles', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'scm_get_vulnerability_profile' for individual profiles, 'scm_list_tsg_profiles' for TSG profiles), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this list operation.

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