QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating it returns a list with basic information but not detailing format, pagination, or potential errors. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description meets the lower bar by providing some additional context without contradicting 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 functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what is returned, and with an output schema present, detailed return value explanations are unnecessary. However, it could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or data specifics to enhance completeness for the agent.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of LEAN versions with basic information for each version.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('LEAN versions'), and scope ('list with basic information'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_mcp_server_version' or 'read_latest_mcp_server_version', which appear related but target different resources.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'read_mcp_server_version' or 'read_latest_mcp_server_version', which might serve similar purposes for different data. This lack of explicit guidance leaves the agent without clear direction.

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