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 a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 complexity (a list operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to rely on.

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 for both parameters: 'folder' is explained as 'Folder name to scope the query', and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This compensates partially but lacks details like format constraints or examples, leaving room for improvement.

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 ('WildFire antivirus profiles in a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar list tools for other resource types (e.g., scm_list_addresses, scm_list_services) beyond mentioning the specific resource, which is adequate but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 minimal guidance by specifying that the query is scoped to a folder, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools for different resources or search tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with little context for decision-making.

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