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. 'Set environment variable' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this affects the current session only, is persistent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description lacks details on error handling, scope (e.g., process-level), or any behavioral traits 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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and zero-waste. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though this brevity may contribute to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the variable (e.g., return values, success indicators), potential errors, or usage context. For a tool that modifies system state, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct invocation by an AI agent.

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 parameter names and descriptions ('varName' and 'value'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., valid variable names). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Set environment variable' clearly states the action (set) and resource (environment variable), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mqscript_sys_getenv' (get vs. set), though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The description is specific but could be more detailed about scope or persistence.

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 appropriate permissions), when it's appropriate (e.g., for script configuration), or contrast with siblings like 'mqscript_sys_getenv' for retrieval. Usage is implied by the verb 'set,' but explicit context is missing.

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