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. 'Create an If statement structure' implies a write operation that generates something, but it doesn't specify what is created (e.g., output format, whether it's saved or returned), any side effects, permissions needed, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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 the complexity of a tool that creates code structures, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., whether it returns a string, modifies a script, or triggers execution), making it incomplete for effective use without trial and error.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'condition', 'thenBody', and 'elseBody'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain syntax examples or constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 an If statement structure' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('If statement structure'), making the purpose clear. However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being created (e.g., a code snippet, a configuration object, or a script block) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'mqscript_for' or 'mqscript_while', which are also control flow structures.

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, context (e.g., within a scripting environment), or comparisons to other control flow tools like 'mqscript_for' or 'mqscript_while'. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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