MQScript MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Set enabled state' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the UI when disabled (e.g., graying out vs hiding), if changes are immediate or batched, or potential side effects on other controls. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe use.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the enabled state, what errors might occur, how to identify valid control IDs, or the visual/functional implications of enabling/disabling. The combination of mutation operation with minimal description creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool correctly.

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 both parameters ('id' and 'enabled') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'Control ID' or what 'enabled' state means in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Set enabled state') and target ('UI control'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mqscript_ui_setvisible' which also modifies UI control states, leaving room for confusion about when to use one versus the other.

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 sibling tools like 'mqscript_ui_setvisible' that also modify UI control properties, there's no indication of when enabling/disabling is appropriate versus showing/hiding or other UI manipulation methods.

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