Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the requirement for an OpenRouter key (authentication need), mentions the unified API aspect, and provides an example of typical usage. While annotations cover basic hints (not read-only, open world, etc.), the description enhances understanding of the tool's operational requirements.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections (purpose, requirements, args, returns, examples) and zero wasted sentences. Each element serves a distinct purpose: the opening establishes context, the Args section provides essential details, and the example illustrates practical application.

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 (AI completion with multiple parameters), the description is complete: it covers purpose, authentication requirements, parameter details with examples, return values, and usage examples. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than return format details.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter semantics through the Args section, detailing each field (model, prompt, system, max_tokens, temperature) with examples, defaults, and constraints. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds practical usage guidance.

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 ('Run an AI completion') and resources ('using OpenRouter's 400+ models'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle file operations, computer management, or UI interactions. It explicitly mentions the unified API access to multiple model providers.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Run an AI completion') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires OpenRouter key in your Orgo account settings'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. The example helps illustrate usage scenarios.

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