scm-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, which is adequate but basic. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by explanatory context and parameter details. There's minimal waste, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated into the flow for optimal structure.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, context, and parameters adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations.

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 adds meaningful semantics: 'folder' is explained as 'Folder name to scope the query', and 'tsg_id' is clarified as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default. This goes beyond the schema's basic types, providing useful context for 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 ('zone protection profiles in a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It also explains what zone protection profiles do, adding context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_get_zone_protection_profile' (singular vs. list), which would require a 5.

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 'in a folder' and providing parameter details, suggesting it's for listing profiles within a specific scope. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'scm_get_zone_protection_profile' for a single profile or 'scm_list_tsg_profiles' for broader queries), leaving some ambiguity.

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