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 but omits critical behavioral details: whether it returns an integer, handles null/empty strings, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or includes error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get length of a string'). It is appropriately sized for a simple function and avoids unnecessary elaboration, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with parameters. It does not explain return values (e.g., integer length), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it reliably beyond basic inference from the name and schema.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('text' as the input string and 'resultVariable' as the output storage). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter understanding.

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 'Get length of a string' clearly states the verb ('Get length') and resource ('a string'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'mqscript_instr' (which finds substrings) or 'mqscript_ubound' (which gets array bounds), leaving room for confusion in a crowded namespace of string/array functions.

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. With siblings like 'mqscript_instr' for substring operations or 'mqscript_ubound' for array dimensions, the description lacks context on appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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