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 effectively adds context beyond basic functionality by explaining platform differences, response ID usage (e.g., 'id/resourceId: Use this for other tools'), and performance considerations (implied in search examples). However, it lacks explicit details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 with clear sections (e.g., 'Replaces,' 'Supported resource types,' 'Platform differences,' 'Search examples,' 'Response ID fields,' 'Parameters'), making it easy to navigate. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool but includes some redundancy (e.g., parameter list overlaps with schema). Most sentences earn their place by providing useful context or examples.

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 (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job of providing context through examples, platform differences, and response field explanations. It compensates for the lack of output schema by detailing 'Response ID fields.' However, it could be more complete by addressing potential limitations or error scenarios, which are relevant for a search tool with many parameters.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters with brief explanations but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it repeats 'query: Text search' similar to the schema). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description offers minimal additional semantic value.

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 performs a 'unified search for Qlik resources across Cloud and On-Premise deployments,' specifying the verb ('search') and resource scope ('Qlik resources'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it 'Replaces: qlik_search_apps, qlik_get_space_items,' making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by listing replaced tools and detailing platform differences (e.g., 'Cloud: Uses Spaces, supports all resource types' vs. 'On-Premise: Uses Streams, apps only'). It includes practical examples like 'Find apps by name' and 'Find in specific space,' which help clarify appropriate contexts for use.

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