QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate 'destructiveHint: false', confirming non-destructive behavior, which the description aligns with by implying a read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it creates a job for downloading and returns a job Id, offering context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail job lifecycle, permissions, or rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the core action without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying the two-step process more explicitly, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (involving job creation and file downloads), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, reducing the need for return value details. However, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite structured data support.

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 'organizationId' and 'keys' undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter semantics, failing to explain what 'organizationId' or 'keys' represent, their formats, or how they relate to the job creation, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 with specific verbs ('Create a job to download files' and 'read the job Id'), identifying the resource (Object Store files) and the outcome (job Id). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_object_store_file_download_url', which might offer alternative file access methods.

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_download_url' for direct URLs or 'list_object_store_files' for browsing. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or workflow integration, leaving usage unclear.

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