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 the action ('Start a new row') but doesn't explain what happens (e.g., does it add to an existing layout, require specific permissions, have side effects, or return a value?). For a UI manipulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 UI manipulation and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what 'starting a new row' returns or affects), prerequisites, or how it integrates with other UI tools. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to be complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 'Start a new row in layout' clearly states the action (start) and target (row in layout), but it's somewhat vague about what 'layout' refers to and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_ui_newlayout' or other UI-related tools. It avoids tautology by not just repeating the name, but lacks specificity about the context or system.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing layout), exclusions, or related tools like 'mqscript_ui_newlayout' for creating layouts first. It leaves usage entirely to inference from the name and context.

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