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. It states the tool's action but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. For example, it doesn't specify what happens if 'count' exceeds the string length or if negative values are used, which are critical for safe invocation.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 low complexity (simple string extraction), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more completeness would be beneficial, but it's not entirely 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain edge cases or usage nuances). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter meanings without extra value from the description.

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 tool's function: 'Get specified number of characters from right side of string.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('characters from right side of string'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'mqscript_left', which likely extracts from the left side, leaving room for slight improvement.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'mqscript_left' or 'mqscript_mid' for different string extraction needs, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual cues for usage. This lack of comparative or situational advice limits its effectiveness in guiding the agent.

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