MQScript MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens with empty strings or invalid delimiters), performance implications, or output format (e.g., array structure). This is inadequate for a tool with mutation-like behavior (splitting implies transformation).

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 ('split string into array') and specifies the method ('using delimiter'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., type of array, handling of edge cases), error conditions, or how it fits within the broader MQScript context (e.g., scripting environment implications). For a tool with potential side effects in a scripting system, this leaves significant gaps.

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, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'text' is split by 'delimiter' into an 'array', which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('split') and resource ('string'), and specifies the output ('array using delimiter'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_join' (which likely does the opposite) or 'mqscript_instr' (which might search within strings), missing full sibling distinction.

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 like 'mqscript_join' for the reverse operation or 'mqscript_instr' for string searching, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for splitting strings, leaving usage unclear.

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