MQScript 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 states the tool sets an event handler but doesn't explain what happens when clicked (e.g., executes code, may affect UI state), whether it overwrites existing handlers, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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?

For a tool that modifies UI behavior (setting event handlers) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what the handler does, error conditions), doesn't reference sibling tools for context, and fails to explain the mutation's impact, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (windowId, controlId, handlerCode) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Set click event handler') and target resource ('for floating window button'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_element_click' or 'mqscript_fw_addbutton', which might handle similar UI interactions.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a created floating window), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'mqscript_element_click' for non-floating-window elements.

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