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. It states the action ('Press a key once') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., accessibility services), what happens on failure, if it's synchronous or asynchronous, or any side effects (e.g., triggering system events). For a tool that likely interacts with device input, this is a significant gap in disclosure.

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 a key once' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary details, 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?

Given the complexity of a key-press tool (likely for device automation), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist, and the description lacks context on usage, behavior, or return values. It doesn't explain what 'once' entails (e.g., duration, timing) or how it integrates with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full role.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'keyCode' fully documented in the schema (e.g., examples like 4 for back). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't mention the parameter at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 a key once' clearly states the action (press) and target (a key), but it's vague about the context—it doesn't specify what device or interface the key press applies to (e.g., Android device, virtual keyboard). It distinguishes from siblings like 'mqscript_keydown' and 'mqscript_keyup' by implying a single press action, but the distinction isn't explicit.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'mqscript_keydown' (for holding a key) or 'mqscript_keyup' (for releasing a key), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts (e.g., use during automation on a mobile device). The description alone offers no usage instructions.

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