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 'Set TURING robot configuration,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify if this is persistent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting other tools). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 a single phrase, 'Set TURING robot configuration,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 configuration-setting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the configuration affects, success/failure outcomes, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'mqscript_turing_chat.' For a mutation tool with behavioral implications, more context is needed to ensure 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'TURING API key'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain how these parameters interact or their role in configuration. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 TURING robot configuration' clearly indicates a configuration-setting action for a TURING robot, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_turing_chat' or explain what 'configuration' entails beyond the parameters. This makes it somewhat vague about the exact scope of configuration being set.

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 API access), exclusions, or related tools like 'mqscript_turing_chat' for chat interactions. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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