MQScript MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Make a phone call') but does not describe traits such as whether it initiates a call immediately, requires user interaction, handles errors, or has side effects (e.g., audio output, call logs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 'Make a phone call' is extremely concise with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose in a single, clear phrase without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that performs a phone call—a potentially complex action with device and network dependencies—the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide necessary context such as success/failure responses, permissions needed, or interaction with the device's call system, making it incomplete for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'phoneNumber' parameter clearly documented as 'Phone number to call'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format requirements (e.g., international codes) or validation rules. Given the high 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 'Make a phone call' clearly states the action (make) and resource (phone call), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about the context (e.g., automated calling, device interaction) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'mqscript_phone_sendsms' or 'mqscript_phone_getcallstate', which are related phone 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device permissions, network connectivity), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'mqscript_phone_sendsms' for SMS or 'mqscript_phone_getcallstate' for checking call status, leaving usage context unclear.

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