Qlik MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering/sorting capabilities and return format, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for filtering/sorting support and return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 list/read tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about filtering capabilities and return format. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned run objects (beyond just listing id, status, startTime, endTime) and any limitations or pagination behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of filter and sort syntax (e.g., "status eq 'failed'", "-startTime") and clarifying that limit controls 'Maximum number of results' - though this is also in the schema. This additional semantic guidance elevates the score above baseline.

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 specific action ('List all runs') and resource ('for a specific automation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'qlik_automation_get_details' (which gets details of a single automation) and 'qlik_automation_run' (which executes an automation). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 context by specifying it's for listing runs of a specific automation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'qlik_automation_list' (which lists automations themselves) or other filtering/search tools. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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