MQScript MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose effects like whether the text view is persistent, requires specific permissions, or interacts with other UI components. No information on error handling, performance, or side effects is included.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving gaps in understanding how to effectively invoke and interpret results from this UI modification tool.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a UI addition, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 'Add text view to floating window' clearly states the action (add) and resource (text view to floating window), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_fw_addbutton' or 'mqscript_ui_addedittext', which also add UI elements but to different contexts.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing floating window), compare it to similar tools like 'mqscript_fw_addbutton' for adding buttons, or specify use cases for text views over other UI elements.

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