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. It states the tool finds a substring position, but doesn't describe what happens if the substring isn't found (e.g., returns -1, null, or error), whether it's case-sensitive, or any performance or side-effect considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs a search operation.

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 ('Find position of substring in string') that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (string search with optional parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., integer position or error indicator), edge cases, or how it fits among many string-related siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'text' as the string to search in, 'searchText' as the substring). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 tool's purpose as 'Find position of substring in string', which specifies the verb ('find position') and resource ('substring in string'). It's specific enough to understand the core functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential string manipulation siblings like 'mqscript_mid' or 'mqscript_replace' that might also work with substrings.

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. With many sibling tools for string manipulation (e.g., mqscript_mid, mqscript_replace, mqscript_split), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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