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 but fails completely. 'Show floating window' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the window doesn't exist. For a tool that presumably interacts with UI elements, this lack of behavioral information is a critical gap.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to provide necessary context about what 'show' means operationally. The single phrase doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name itself, making this a case of harmful brevity rather than effective conciseness.

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 that this is a UI manipulation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest complex floating window operations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, how it relates to other floating window tools, or what 'showing' a window entails in this specific scripting context. The minimal description leaves critical gaps for agent 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?

The description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description ('Floating window ID'). Since the schema documentation is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema adequately documents the single required parameter.

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 'Show floating window' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'mqscript_fw_show' (where 'fw' likely stands for 'floating window'). It doesn't specify what 'show' means in this context - whether it makes a window visible, displays its properties, or something else. While it identifies the resource (floating window), the verb 'show' remains vague without clarifying the specific action.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to floating windows (mqscript_fw_addbutton, mqscript_fw_addtextview, mqscript_fw_create, mqscript_fw_hide, mqscript_fw_onclick), but the description doesn't explain how 'show' differs from 'create' or relates to 'hide'. No context about prerequisites, sequencing, or appropriate use cases is provided.

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