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. 'Display a message dialog' implies a UI interaction but lacks details on dialog type (e.g., modal, duration), user interaction (e.g., blocking vs. non-blocking), platform-specific behavior, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.

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 ('Display a message dialog') with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place by succinctly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a UI-interaction tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like dialog behavior, response handling, or error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively in a script automation 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'message' clearly documented in the schema as 'Message to display'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as message length limits, formatting options, or localization considerations. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 'Display a message dialog' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('message dialog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'mqscript_traceprint' (which might log rather than show a dialog) or 'mqscript_inputtext' (which might prompt for input), but the core action is well-defined.

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 scenarios like user notifications, debugging pop-ups, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'mqscript_traceprint' (for logging) or 'mqscript_inputtext' (for input dialogs), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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