QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retries, but no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description adds context: it's a lock operation for editing, implying a state change that might restrict access. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., blocking collaborators), auth needs, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description carries some burden due to limited 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main action and context, making it easy to parse. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (state-changing lock operation), annotations are minimal (only idempotentHint), schema coverage is 0%, and an output schema exists (not provided here). The description is too brief: it doesn't cover prerequisites, effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely involves permissions and collaboration dynamics, this is inadequate.

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 parameters 'projectId' and 'codeSourceId' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying 'project' context. It fails to explain what 'projectId' or 'codeSourceId' mean or how they're used, leaving significant gaps in understanding the inputs.

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 ('Lock') and resource ('a project that has collaborators'), with a specific purpose ('so you can edit it'). It distinguishes from generic lock operations by specifying the collaborator context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'create_project_collaborator' which might have overlapping contexts.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage when a project has collaborators and needs editing. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'update_project' or other project management tools). No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are mentioned.

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