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. It discloses important behavioral constraints (QRI requirement, format specification, prerequisite tool), but doesn't mention other potential traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the lineage output looks like. The description adds value but isn't 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important requirements and usage notes. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second emphasizes the QRI requirement, and the bullet points provide critical format and prerequisite information without redundancy.

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 (lineage tool with specific identifier requirements) and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential context (purpose, QRI requirement, format, prerequisite tool), though it could benefit from mentioning what lineage information is returned since there's no output schema.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about the nodeId parameter (QRI format, where to get it), but doesn't provide additional meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get lineage information for a dataset or resource.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('lineage information'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'qlik_get_dataset_details' or 'qlik_get_reload_info' beyond the lineage focus.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states the prerequisite ('REQUIRES QRI from dataset.rawDataset.secureQri'), specifies when to use an alternative ('If you only have a dataset ID, first call get_dataset_details to get the QRI'), and clarifies what not to use ('The nodeId must be a QRI, not a regular ID').

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