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. 'Exit the script' implies a termination action but doesn't specify critical behaviors: whether this stops the entire script execution, what happens to ongoing processes, if it's reversible, or any side effects (e.g., cleanup). This is inadequate for a tool that likely ends script flow.

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 extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it could benefit from additional context.

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 likely critical role in script termination (implied by 'exit'), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema. The description fails to address what 'exiting' entails operationally, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand this tool's impact in the scripting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'exitCode' well-documented in the schema as 'Exit code' with a default of 0. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't enhance understanding. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description contribution.

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 'Exit the script' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'mqscript_sys_exit' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'exit' and resource 'the script', but doesn't clarify what 'the script' refers to or how this differs from other termination methods in the sibling tools. It's minimally informative but essentially repeats the name.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts (e.g., after completing tasks, on error), or how it compares to other system-related siblings like 'mqscript_sys_sleep' or 'mqscript_sys_getenv'. This leaves the agent without direction on proper invocation timing.

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