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. It states the action ('Convert string to lowercase') but lacks behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., for non-string inputs), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is minimal and does not disclose operational traits beyond the basic function.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 low complexity (simple string transformation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on error handling or integration with sibling tools, which could enhance completeness for an AI agent. It meets basic requirements but has room for improvement in operational guidance.

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 both parameters ('text' and 'resultVariable') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb ('Convert') and resource ('string'), specifying the transformation to lowercase. It distinguishes from sibling 'mqscript_ucase' (uppercase conversion) by implication, though not explicitly named. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from other string manipulation tools like 'mqscript_replace' or 'mqscript_join'.

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. The description does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for application. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit when/when-not statements.

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