MQScript MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Launch an application' implies a write/mutation action (starting an app), but it does not specify permissions required (e.g., accessibility settings), side effects (e.g., app opens in foreground), error handling (e.g., if app not found), or performance traits (e.g., blocking until launch). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Launch an application' is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 launching an application (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool is inadequately documented. The description does not cover return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a real-world context.

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 'packageName' clearly documented as 'Package name of the app to launch'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., 'com.example.app') or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Launch an application' clearly states the action (launch) and target (application), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of application (e.g., mobile app, system app) or context (e.g., on a device, in a script environment), and does not distinguish it from potential siblings like 'mqscript_sys_shell' which might also launch applications. This makes it vague but not tautological.

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 prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed), context (e.g., use in automation scripts), or compare it to siblings like 'mqscript_sys_shell' for broader system commands. This absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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