MQScript MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what happens if 'count' exceeds string length (truncation, error, or padding?), whether the operation is read-only or modifies state, what format the result takes, or if there are any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple string manipulation function and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple string extraction tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks important context about behavior, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what gets returned, but it doesn't.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'specified number of characters' which aligns with the 'count' parameter and 'string' which aligns with 'text', but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get specified number of characters from left side of string'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('characters from left side of string'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'mqscript_right' (which presumably gets characters from the right side), though the naming convention implies this distinction.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'mqscript_right', 'mqscript_mid', or 'mqscript_instr' that might serve similar string manipulation purposes. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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