tqs-mcp

tqs_introspect

Read-only

Inspect the installed TQS API to list real methods and properties with signatures, verifying names not covered by published documentation.

Instructions

Inspect the installed TQS API: list a module's or object's real methods and properties with signatures. Use this whenever you are unsure a name exists — the published docs cover only part of the surface.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tqs_introspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No
`target`	No		TQS

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it returns 'real' (installed) methods/properties with signatures, implying the output is from the live runtime rather than static docs. This is useful behavioral info not included in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second explains when to use it. No wasted words, fully earns its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only introspection tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and output shape (signatures). However, the lack of parameter guidance is a noticeable gap, making it not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'filter' or 'target' at all. While defaults provide minor hints, the meaning of 'filter' (what it filters on) and 'target' (module vs object) is left undocumented, making it hard for an agent to use parameters correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states an action ('Inspect installed TQS API') and a specific deliverable ('list a module's or object's real methods and properties with signatures'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tqs_process or tqs_dwg_read by being the introspection/metadata tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this whenever you are unsure a name exists.' It also explains why (docs cover only part of the surface), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough.

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

Deploy Server