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 mentions 'Hold touch on screen' but doesn't specify what 'hold' entails (e.g., continuous press), potential side effects (e.g., UI interactions, app responses), or system requirements. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with device input.

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 without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy 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 complexity of a screen interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error conditions, or what happens after the touch (e.g., does it return success/failure?). More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 clear descriptions for 'duration', 'x', and 'y' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as coordinate system details or duration constraints. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Hold touch') and the resource ('on screen'), specifying the duration aspect. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mqscript_tap' (brief touch) and 'mqscript_swipe' (movement), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'mqscript_element_click'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mqscript_tap' or 'mqscript_swipe'. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for its use, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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