QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying the directory-based listing scope ('under a specific directory'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or output format details, leaving gaps despite the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with key information ('List the Object Store files') and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only per annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and detailed parameter semantics, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for these 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%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'directory in an organization,' which loosely maps to the path and organizationId parameters but lacks specifics like format examples or optionality. Since there's only 1 parameter (a nested object with two fields), the baseline is 3, as the description provides some high-level context without detailed compensation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Object Store files'), specifying the scope as 'under a specific directory in an organization.' It distinguishes this tool from other list tools (e.g., list_backtests, list_projects) by focusing on Object Store files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like read_object_store_file_download_url, which is a minor gap.

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 organization access), exclusions (e.g., not for reading file contents), or related tools like read_object_store_file_download_url for downloading files. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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