MQScript MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation action but doesn't describe what happens after calculation (e.g., where the result is stored, if there are error conditions for invalid inputs, or performance characteristics). For a mathematical tool with potential edge cases (like undefined values at certain angles), this is insufficient.

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 directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

For a simple mathematical calculation tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks information about return values, error handling, or mathematical constraints that would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in all scenarios.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters (angle and resultVariable). The description mentions 'angle in radians' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as 'Calculate tangent of an angle (in radians)', which includes a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('tangent of an angle'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mqscript_sin and mqscript_cos by specifying the trigonometric function, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mathematical operations in the sibling list beyond the function 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons to similar tools like mqscript_sin or mqscript_cos, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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