QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't specify aspects like pagination, sorting, or rate limits. No contradictions exist with annotations, but additional context is needed for full transparency.

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, making it easy to parse. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, fitting the tool's straightforward nature.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations beyond a title, the description is too minimal—it lacks parameter guidance and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective use despite the output schema.

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%, with one parameter 'model' that includes a 'status' field with an enum. The description mentions 'past and current' deployments, hinting at status filtering, but fails to explain the parameter's purpose or how to use the status options, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('past and current live trading deployments'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_backtests' or 'list_optimizations' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_live_algorithm' for detailed views or other list tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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