MQScript MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get current call state' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'call state' includes (e.g., ringing, active, ended), whether it requires permissions, or how it handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 'Get current call state' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (involving phone state retrieval) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the call state entails, possible return values, or error conditions. For a tool that interacts with device functionality, more context is needed to ensure proper usage without relying on guesswork.

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 one parameter 'resultVariable' clearly documented as storing the call state. The description doesn't add extra parameter details, but since schema coverage is high and there's only one optional parameter, the baseline is strong. The description implies the tool retrieves call state without needing input parameters, which aligns with the schema's optional nature.

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 current call state' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current call state'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_phone_call' or 'mqscript_phone_sendsms', which are related phone operations but serve different functions. The description is specific enough to understand what it does but lacks sibling context.

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 prerequisites, such as needing an active call, or compare it to other phone-related tools like 'mqscript_phone_call' for making calls. Without this context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in scenarios involving phone operations.

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