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 value by specifying that it returns the 'latest' version, which is behavioral context not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, it provides useful additional information about the version scope.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Returns the latest version') with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations with readOnlyHint, and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It clearly states the purpose and scope ('latest version'), and with the output schema handling return values, no additional details are needed for this simple read operation.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adequately describes the tool's function without unnecessary 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 specific action ('Returns') and resource ('latest version of the QC MCP Server'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'read_mcp_server_version' which likely returns a different version (e.g., current or specific). The verb 'Returns' is precise and the scope 'latest version' is well-defined.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'latest version,' suggesting it should be used when the most recent version is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'read_mcp_server_version' or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on sibling tool differentiation.

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