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 states 'Update a custom application object' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full update). The note about ports 'replaces existing' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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 core purpose. The parameter explanations are organized in a clear list format. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., separating the tsg_id default note from the parameter list).

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks critical behavioral context (permissions, side effects, response format) and usage guidance. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 meaningful semantics for all 7 parameters: identifies app_id as UUID, explains optionality, clarifies that ports 'replaces existing', and gives context for risk level range (1-5) and tsg_id default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though some details like port format or tag structure remain unspecified.

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 'Update' and resource 'custom application object', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_create_application' (create vs update) and 'scm_get_application' (read vs update), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description text itself.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'scm_create_application' for creation or 'scm_delete_application' for deletion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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