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 calculation action but doesn't describe what happens after: whether the result is returned directly, stored in a variable (implied by the resultVariable parameter but not explained), or if there are side effects like errors for invalid inputs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Calculate sine of an angle (in radians)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context (units). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for this simple mathematical tool.

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 (a basic mathematical function), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, return format) and usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for the simple 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 clear descriptions for both parameters: 'angle' as 'Angle in radians' and 'resultVariable' as 'Variable name to store result'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the default for resultVariable or valid ranges for angle. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate sine of an angle (in radians)'. It specifies the verb ('Calculate') and resource ('sine'), and distinguishes from siblings like mqscript_cos and mqscript_tan by naming the trigonometric function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all mathematical siblings (e.g., mqscript_sqr, mqscript_abs), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 tools (e.g., mqscript_cos for cosine, mqscript_tan for tangent) or other mathematical functions, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the function name alone, but no explicit context is given.

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