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. 'Press and hold a key' implies a mutation action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how long the key is held, if it interacts with system events, or what happens on failure. 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 'Press and hold a key' is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data. For a tool that likely interacts with system input, more context is needed to understand its full operation.

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 the parameter 'keyCode' documented as 'Key code to press down'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of key codes or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Press and hold a key' clearly states the action (press and hold) and the resource (a key), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_keypress' (press) or 'mqscript_keyup' (release), which would require mentioning the 'hold' aspect more explicitly to distinguish it.

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 such as 'mqscript_keypress' or 'mqscript_keyup'. It lacks context about scenarios requiring key holding (e.g., for sustained input or in combination with other actions), leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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