MQScript 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. 'Create' implies a code-generation operation, but it doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the loop is executed immediately, how it integrates with other script components, or any side effects). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a code-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., whether it returns generated code as a string or modifies a script state), error conditions, or integration with the scripting environment, leaving critical context gaps.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all 5 parameters (variable, start, end, step, body). The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately covers parameters, though the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Create a For loop structure' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('For loop structure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mqscript_if' and 'mqscript_while' by specifying a for-loop construct, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. It doesn't mention when a for-loop is appropriate compared to while-loops or other control structures, nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases within the scripting context.

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