QuantConnect MCP Server

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

The description states 'Delete a file' which implies a destructive operation, but annotations already provide idempotentHint=true. The description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent, confirmation requirements, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, what's present is efficiently structured.

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 destructive operation tool with 0% schema description coverage and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. While there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't provide enough context about the deletion operation, parameters, or usage scenarios 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 description provides zero information about parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object with 3 sub-properties), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It doesn't mention projectId, filename, or codeSourceId at all.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file in a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_object' or 'delete_backtest', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.

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 are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_backtest, delete_object, delete_optimization, delete_project, delete_project_collaborator), but the description doesn't explain when file deletion is appropriate versus deleting other resources.

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