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 tool gets the current system time but doesn't explain what 'system time' entails (e.g., timezone, precision), whether it's a read-only operation, or how errors might occur. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 with a single, clear sentence ('Get current system time') that front-loads the essential action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (simple time retrieval with two optional parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of the time string) and behavioral context, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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, fully documenting both parameters ('format' and 'resultVariable') with their purposes and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current system time'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_datetime_now' or 'mqscript_datetime_format', which appear related to time/date operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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. With sibling tools like 'mqscript_datetime_now' and 'mqscript_datetime_format' that seem related to time operations, the agent lacks explicit instructions on selection criteria, such as format customization or system-specific vs. datetime-specific contexts.

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