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. 'Send SMS message' implies a write operation with external effects, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, delivery confirmation, costs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with phone systems.

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 extremely concise at just three words with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 sends SMS messages (a mutation with external effects), the description is inadequate given no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't explain what happens after sending, error conditions, or system requirements. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper tool selection.

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 (phoneNumber and message) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Send SMS message' clearly states the action (send) and resource (SMS message), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like mqscript_phone_call. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what exactly is being sent or to what system.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to related tools like mqscript_phone_call or mqscript_showmessage. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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