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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a checkbox control' implies a UI mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, how the checkbox integrates with existing UI elements, what happens on errors, or any rate limits. The description lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a UI mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, control reference), how errors are handled, or integration requirements with other UI tools. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial operation that needs more behavioral 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a checkbox control'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar UI control tools like 'mqscript_ui_addedittext' or 'mqscript_fw_addbutton', which would require mentioning it's specifically for boolean input controls in a UI context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a UI layout context), comparison with other UI controls, or typical use cases for checkbox controls versus other input methods.

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