QuantConnect MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations provide 'idempotentHint: true', indicating safe retries, but the description doesn't elaborate on effects like partial updates or permissions. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little extra insight into mutation behavior.

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 core action. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 a mutation tool with idempotent annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on error conditions, update scope, or relationships with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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%, but the description mentions 'name or description', hinting at two parameters. However, it omits the required 'projectId' and doesn't clarify parameter interactions or defaults. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a project's name or description'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies what can be modified, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project_nodes' or 'update_project_collaborator'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project ID, or contrast with tools like 'create_project' or 'delete_project'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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