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 discloses that this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a constraint about protocol/port changes. However, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or response format. This is a significant gap 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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidance, then parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the parameter section is slightly verbose given the schema exists, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 (mutation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, and parameters, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling) and output information. This is adequate but has clear gaps for safe tool invocation.

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: it lists all 5 parameters, explains their purposes (e.g., 'UUID of the service object to update'), indicates optionality, and provides default info for 'tsg_id'. This goes well beyond the schema, but doesn't cover format details (e.g., UUID format, tag list structure), preventing a 5.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a service object's name, description, or tags.' It specifies the verb ('update') and the resource ('service object'), and lists the fields that can be modified. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_update_service_group' or 'scm_create_service', 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 provides clear usage guidance: 'To change the protocol or port, delete and recreate the service.' This indicates when NOT to use this tool and suggests an alternative action (delete and recreate). However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., 'scm_update_service_group') or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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