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 it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, depth). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential return formats, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool in a complex domain like data cataloging, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 the single parameter 'datasetId' documented as 'Dataset ID'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as where to find the ID or its format. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a dataset from the data catalog'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'qlik_get_reload_info' or 'qlik_get_license_info' that also retrieve information, leaving some ambiguity about scope specificity.

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 specify if this is for metadata, lineage, or other details, or how it differs from tools like 'qlik_get_lineage' or 'qlik_search'. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately among siblings.

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