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 the return information (states, progress, times, errors, metrics), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Gets' but not explicit).

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of return details and a usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, return values, and usage. However, it could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like read-only nature or error handling, slightly reducing completeness for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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%, with the parameter 'reloadId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of reloadId). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Gets the current status of a reload task') and resource ('in Qlik Cloud'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'qlik_cancel_reload' (which cancels) and 'qlik_trigger_app_reload' (which initiates). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that avoids tautology.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to monitor ongoing reloads or check historical reload results,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'qlik_get_reload_info' might be a sibling for different info), so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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