QuantConnect MCP Server

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

The description states 'Remove' which implies a destructive operation, but annotations only provide idempotentHint=true and a title. The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond the obvious destructive nature - no mention of permissions required, whether removal is reversible, or what happens to the collaborator's access. With minimal annotations, the description carries most of the burden but provides only basic behavioral information.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place - 'Remove' specifies the action, 'a collaborator' specifies what's being removed, and 'from a project' specifies the context.

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 with idempotentHint annotation and an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It states what the tool does, but doesn't provide context about permissions, consequences, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description could better prepare the agent for using this mutation tool.

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% description coverage (parameter count is 1 but it's a nested object with 2 sub-parameters), yet the description doesn't mention any parameters at all. However, since the tool name and description clearly imply what needs to be specified (a project and a collaborator), and the schema itself documents the two required fields well, the description gets a baseline 4 for a tool with obvious parameter needs.

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 ('Remove') and target ('a collaborator from a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project_collaborator' or 'create_project_collaborator', but it's specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 like 'update_project_collaborator' or 'lock_project_with_collaborators'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or consequences of removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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