QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the 'Get' action in the description, so there is no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it implies this tool retrieves a URL for downloading, but does not specify if the URL is time-limited, requires authentication, or details rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a baseline score is appropriate as the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for structure and brevity.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to cover safety or return values. However, it lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like URL expiration, and guidance relative to siblings. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no output description, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in context, scoring at the baseline for completeness.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, such as 'organizationId' or 'jobId', failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, since there is only one top-level parameter ('model'), which is a nested object, the baseline is adjusted to 3 as the description does not add meaningful parameter information beyond what is implied by the tool name.

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 ('Get the URL') and the resource ('for downloading files from the Object Store'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'read_object_store_file_job_id', which appears related, so it misses the highest score for sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'read_object_store_file_job_id' or 'list_object_store_files'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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