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 specifies that the output includes both stdout and stderr combined, which is not covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it could mention potential risks like command injection or system impacts, though the annotations provide a solid safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, parameter details, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 (executing arbitrary bash commands with destructive potential) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values, and the output schema handles the response format, so no additional details are needed for effective tool invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing the parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining that 'params' contains 'computer_id' and 'command', and providing examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on parameter constraints or formats beyond the examples given.

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 a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('bash command on the computer'), distinguishing it from siblings like orgo_click or orgo_type. It provides concrete examples of use cases (file operations, installing packages, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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 includes a 'Useful for' section that gives clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., file operations, installing packages), which helps differentiate it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as preferring orgo_exec for non-bash commands, leaving some room for improvement.

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