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. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the health information returns, whether it includes performance metrics or just binary status, or if it has any rate limits. For a health monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place: 'check' establishes the action, 'server status and service health' specifies the scope, and 'including governance capabilities' adds important nuance. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what the health check returns (metrics, status codes, governance details) and any behavioral considerations. The description is minimally complete but could be more informative given the lack of structured metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It focuses on what the tool does rather than what inputs it accepts, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 specific verbs ('check server status and service health') and includes governance capabilities. It distinguishes itself from most siblings that focus on alerts, automations, selections, or data operations rather than system health monitoring. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'qlik_get_tenant_info' or 'qlik_get_license_info' which might also provide health-related information.

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. With siblings like 'qlik_get_tenant_info', 'qlik_get_license_info', and 'qlik_get_reload_status' that might provide overlapping or complementary health information, there's no indication of when this comprehensive health check is preferred over more specific tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or use cases.

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