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. It states the action ('Add button') but doesn't describe what happens after adding—e.g., whether the button is interactive by default, if it requires additional setup like event handlers, or any side effects. For a UI manipulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and implications.

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: 'Add button to floating window'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. However, it's arguably too concise, bordering on under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, but within the dimension of conciseness, it scores well for being direct and 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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely modifies UI state, more context is needed—e.g., whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, or interacts with other tools. The description alone is inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 clear descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'Control ID', 'Button text', 'X position in window'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 'Add button to floating window' clearly states the action (add) and target (button to floating window), but it's somewhat vague about the specific context or scope. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_fw_addtextview' or 'mqscript_ui_addcheckbox', which also add UI elements. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this button addition unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'mqscript_fw_addtextview' or other UI-related tools in the sibling list. The description is a bare statement without context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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