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. It mentions the tool works on both Cloud and On-Premise, which adds useful context about compatibility. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and compatibility. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and compatibility but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or authentication needs. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a basic foundation that is adequate for a simple read operation.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear default and purpose for 'includeDetails'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here as the description mentions no parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('license information'), including what information is retrieved (type, allocated seats, usage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on license data rather than alerts, automations, selections, or other Qlik resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like qlik_get_tenant_info or qlik_get_user_info beyond the resource type.

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 some implied context by mentioning it works on both Cloud and On-Premise (QRS license endpoint), which suggests when this tool is applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., qlik_get_tenant_info for broader tenant data) or any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is clear but not fully articulated with alternatives or specific scenarios.

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