MQScript MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-string inputs), performance implications, side effects, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the core function.

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. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, 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 tool's low complexity (simple string transformation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, and sibling differentiation, which could help an agent use it more effectively in a broader scripting environment.

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 fully documents both parameters ('text' and 'resultVariable'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain character encoding or locale considerations for uppercase conversion). 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 'Convert string to uppercase' clearly states the verb ('convert') and resource ('string'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'mqscript_lcase' (lowercase conversion) beyond the obvious direction, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'mqscript_lcase' or other string manipulation tools (e.g., 'mqscript_replace', 'mqscript_join'). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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