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. While 'Replace' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this modifies the original string or returns a new one, what happens on errors (e.g., if searchText isn't found), or any performance considerations. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Replace occurrences of substring'), making it easy to scan and understand immediately. 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 complexity of a string manipulation tool with mutation implications and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values (e.g., whether it returns the modified string or stores it in a variable), error handling, or how it interacts with sibling string tools. For a 5-parameter tool with behavioral nuances, this is inadequate.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'count' as number of replacements, 'resultVariable' for storing results). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'occurrences of substring with new text', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_instr' (which searches for substrings) or 'mqscript_join' (which concatenates strings), but the core function is unambiguous.

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 string manipulation tools like 'mqscript_left', 'mqscript_right', 'mqscript_mid', or 'mqscript_join', nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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