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. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is likely non-destructive, but does not specify return format, permissions required, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that retrieves data, as the agent lacks details on what 'current selections' entails or how results are structured.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 retrieving selections in an app, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'current selections' are, the return format, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 'appId' documented as 'App ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to find the app ID or its format. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts from the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current selections in an app'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'qlik_get_available_fields' or 'qlik_clear_selections', which might involve selections in different ways, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an app with existing selections, or contrast with tools like 'qlik_clear_selections' or 'qlik_apply_selections', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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