Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds useful context about coordinate system ('pixels from top-left corner') and default button behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this triggers UI events, has latency considerations, or requires specific screen resolution conditions. The annotations already declare non-destructive and non-idempotent, so the description doesn't contradict them.

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 with clear sections (purpose, usage guidance, coordinate explanation, Args, Returns, Examples). Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, second provides usage guidance, third explains coordinates, and the structured sections efficiently document parameters and examples without redundancy.

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?

For a click action tool with 1 parameter object containing 4 fields, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage guidance, coordinate system explanation, parameter details, return value, and examples. The output schema exists (Returns: str), so the description doesn't need to elaborate on return values. It could benefit from mentioning error conditions or coordinate validity ranges.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden. It provides clear explanations of all parameters: coordinates are 'in pixels from top-left corner,' computer_id is mentioned in the Args section, and button options with default are explained. The examples further clarify parameter usage, though it could explicitly mention computer_id in examples.

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 specific action ('Click at (x, y) coordinates on the screen') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'orgo_double_click' and 'orgo_drag' by specifying it's a single click operation. The verb 'click' is precise and the resource 'screen coordinates' is 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 explicitly states 'Use orgo_screenshot first to see the screen and identify click targets,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming a specific alternative tool for prerequisite context. This helps the agent understand the workflow relationship between tools.

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