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 'Chat with TURING robot' but does not reveal if this is a read-only or mutating operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety profile.

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 with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for a tool with behavioral complexity.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and potential behavioral complexity (e.g., chat interactions may involve network calls, error handling). It fails to address key aspects like response format, error conditions, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 schema already documents all parameters (apiKey, message, resultVariable, userId). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage context. 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 'Chat with TURING robot' states the general action (chat) and target (TURING robot), but is vague about what this entails—it doesn't specify if this is for AI conversation, testing, or another purpose. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., mqscript_turing_setconfig) by focusing on chat rather than configuration, but lacks specificity in verb+resource details.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an API key), context for use, or exclusions. Without such information, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over other chat or interaction tools in the sibling list.

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