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 mentions 'specified duration', which hints at timing control, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this simulates a touchscreen gesture, requires device interaction permissions, has side effects (e.g., triggering UI events), or what happens on failure. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action ('Swipe') and key details. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.

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 a UI interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., success/failure status), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like coordinate systems (e.g., screen pixels). For a tool that likely involves device control, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 parameters (x1, y1, x2, y2, duration) with their types and purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that parameters define start/end points and duration for the swipe. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Swipe') and the resource ('from one point to another'), specifying the verb and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tap' or 'touch' by indicating a directional movement between coordinates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other motion-related tools if any exist in the sibling list, which is why it's not a 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 like 'tap', 'touch', or other UI interaction tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about typical scenarios (e.g., for scrolling, dragging) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the action alone.

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