MQScript MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if the window is persistent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. It lacks details on the creation process, such as whether it appears immediately or requires additional steps like 'mqscript_fw_show'.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Create a floating window', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the description earns its place by stating the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the floating window's lifecycle, how it integrates with other tools (e.g., adding elements with sibling tools), or what happens after creation. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all parameters (id, height, width, x, y) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the coordinate system (e.g., pixels, screen-relative), default behavior, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 floating window' clearly states the action (create) and resource (floating window), but it's somewhat vague about what a 'floating window' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_fw_addbutton' or 'mqscript_fw_show' that also manipulate floating windows. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the window's purpose or characteristics.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to floating windows (e.g., 'mqscript_fw_addbutton', 'mqscript_fw_hide'), but the description doesn't explain that this tool is for initial creation while others are for modification or interaction. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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