mcp-server-worldquantbrain

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List operators

list_operators

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the FASTEXPR operators available to your account, filtered by search text or category such as Arithmetic or Time Series, with optional full descriptions.

Instructions

List the FASTEXPR operators this account can use. Cached for a week.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_operators"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`search`	No	Substring of name or definition.
`verbose`	No	Include full descriptions.
`category`	No	e.g. Arithmetic or Time Series.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of context the annotations do not: results are account-scoped, and data is "Cached for a week," which tells the agent results may be stale and need not be re-fetched within that window.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by the one operational caveat. Nothing is redundant or padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The account scoping and cache TTL cover the main behavioral questions; only guidance on choosing this over sibling lookups is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with search, verbose, and category all documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no filtering syntax, matching behavior, or interaction between search and category that the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the FASTEXPR operators") and adds a scope qualifier ("this account can use"), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_* tools that enumerate other resource types. Clear enough to select without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The reader must infer from the name and from the account-scoping phrase that this is the discovery tool for operators, and nothing tells them when a get_* lookup would be more appropriate.

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