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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get experiment details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 ('Get experiment details') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it borders on under-specification, as it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, but the overall brevity limits helpfulness.

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 an 'experiment' tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that adds minimal context, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how to interpret them, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data about experiments, more guidance is needed to be fully useful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'experimentId' and 'includeVersions'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what an 'experiment' entails or how versions are structured. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 'Get experiment details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('experiment details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'qlik_automl_get_experiments' (which likely lists experiments) or 'qlik_automl_get_deployment' (which gets deployment details). This makes it vague compared to more precise alternatives.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used after listing experiments with 'qlik_automl_get_experiments' or how it differs from other get-related tools in the server. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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