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 computer boots in under 500ms, starts in 'running' status, returns a computer ID for use with action tools, and includes error handling for insufficient credits. Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description enhances this with performance details and error scenarios, without contradicting annotations.

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: it starts with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details, return value, and organized sections for Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bullet-point formatting in later sections improves readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (creation with multiple parameters), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, return values (with output schema details), examples, and error handling. Annotations provide safety and idempotency hints, and the output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth. It addresses all necessary aspects 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by detailing all parameters (project_name, name, os, ram, cpu) with their purposes, allowed values, and defaults. It provides examples that illustrate parameter usage, such as 'Create Linux computer with 4GB RAM' for ram=4, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's enum and type definitions.

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 ('Create a new virtual computer') and resource ('in a project'), distinguishing it from siblings like orgo_get_computer, orgo_list_computers, orgo_restart_computer, and orgo_delete_computer. It specifies the creation context (project) and outcome (boots in under 500ms, starts in 'running' status), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 for when to use this tool: to create a new virtual computer in a project, with the computer ID returned for use with action tools. It implies alternatives by mentioning sibling tools like action tools, but does not explicitly name when to use this versus alternatives like orgo_get_computer or orgo_list_computers, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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