QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations include 'idempotentHint: true', indicating safe retries, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions deletion is for a 'specific organization and key', which clarifies scope, but doesn't address permissions, side effects (e.g., irreversible deletion), or response details. No contradiction with annotations, but the description adds only modest value beyond them.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters), but it efficiently conveys the essential information 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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, or output implications. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't fully compensate for other gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying that parameters are for 'organization and key', aligning with the schema's 'organizationId' and 'key'. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond this basic mapping. With low schema coverage, the description adds some meaning but not comprehensive details.

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 the resource ('Object Store file'), specifying it targets a specific organization and key. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upload_object' and 'list_object_store_files' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_file'), which slightly reduces specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the file to exist), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'delete_file' or 'delete_object' operations in other contexts. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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