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 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, has side effects, requires permissions, or how it handles errors (e.g., for non-existent arrays). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 zero waste: 'Get upper bound of array'. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (array operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return values. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 both parameters: 'arrayName' as the name of the array and 'resultVariable' as the variable to store the result. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'upper bound' means for the array or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Get upper bound of array' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('upper bound of array'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'upper bound' means in this context (e.g., maximum index, size, or value) or distinguish it from similar tools like 'mqscript_len' (which might get array length). This makes it somewhat vague compared to siblings.

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. With siblings like 'mqscript_len' (likely for length) and 'mqscript_ubound' (for upper bound), there's no indication of the difference, prerequisites, or context for choosing one over the other. This leaves usage entirely implied.

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