MQScript MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Output debug information' reveals nothing about behavioral traits: it doesn't specify where the output goes (console, log file, UI), whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, if it has side effects, or any performance characteristics. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.

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 at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word earns its place by conveying the core function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides minimal context, this is completely inadequate. The agent cannot understand where the debug output goes, what format it takes, when to use it, or how it integrates with the broader system. For a debugging tool that could have various behavioral implications, this description fails to provide necessary context.

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 the single parameter 'message' clearly documented as 'Debug message to output'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Output debug information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'mqscript_traceprint' (trace + print). It doesn't specify what type of debug information, where it goes, or what format it uses. While it indicates the general domain (debugging), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from potential sibling debug tools.

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 context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this debug output would be appropriate versus other debugging methods or tools in the sibling list. The agent receives no usage direction.

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