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. 'Get environment variable' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what happens if the variable doesn't exist (e.g., returns null, error, or default), whether it's safe or has side effects, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear phrase ('Get environment variable') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent 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 the tool's low complexity (a simple read operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, which are not covered by annotations or schema. This makes it incomplete for full agent understanding, though not severely lacking.

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 ('varName' and 'resultVariable'), including a default value for 'resultVariable'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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 'Get environment variable' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('environment variable'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or context (e.g., system vs. script environment), and while it distinguishes from obvious opposites like 'setenv', it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'sys_gettime' in the sibling list, which is a different type of system query.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an environment variable to exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'sys_setenv' for setting variables or 'sys_gettime' for other system data. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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