Qlik MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply selections/filters' implies a write operation that modifies app state, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to existing selections, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of applying selections (a mutation operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what success looks like. For a tool that modifies app state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (appId and selections) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'selections' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('apply') and target ('selections/filters to a Qlik app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'qlik_clear_selections' or 'qlik_get_current_selections', which would require more specific language about what 'apply' entails versus 'clear' or 'get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an active app session or how it relates to 'qlik_clear_selections' or 'qlik_get_current_selections'. The description is standalone with no context for usage scenarios.

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