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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Release a key' implies an action that might affect system state (e.g., input simulation), but it doesn't specify if this requires permissions, has side effects, operates on a specific device, or what happens on invocation (e.g., does it trigger events?). This is inadequate for a tool with potential behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise at just two words ('Release a key'), which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. There's no wasted language.

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 potential complexity (simulating key releases in an automation context), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'mqscript_keydown', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.

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 single parameter 'keyCode' documented as 'Key code to release' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining key code formats (e.g., numeric codes, standard mappings) or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.

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 'Release a key' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'mqscript_keyup' (key up = release a key). It doesn't specify what resource or system this operates on (e.g., keyboard input, virtual keypad, mobile device), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'mqscript_keydown' or 'mqscript_keypress' that likely handle related key operations.

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. Given sibling tools like 'mqscript_keydown' and 'mqscript_keypress', there's no indication of whether this is for ending a key press, simulating key releases in automation, or other contexts. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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