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 action ('calculate square root') but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies state or requires permissions), error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs like negative numbers), or performance aspects (e.g., computational limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function, making it easy to parse and understand 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 the tool's low complexity (a basic mathematical operation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the core purpose but does not address behavioral aspects like error handling or usage context, which would be beneficial for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('number' and 'resultVariable'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the range or constraints for 'number' (e.g., non-negative values) or the purpose of 'resultVariable'. 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 'Calculate square root of a number' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('square root'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_abs' or 'mqscript_sin', which perform other mathematical operations, leaving some ambiguity in distinguishing its specific role within the family of mathematical functions.

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, such as other mathematical functions in the sibling list (e.g., 'mqscript_abs' for absolute value or 'mqscript_sin' for sine). It lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions (e.g., handling negative numbers), or comparisons to similar tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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