Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly warns that the operation is 'destructive and cannot be undone' and that 'all data on the computer will be lost.' While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description elaborates on the irreversible consequences, which is valuable for agent decision-making.

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 action and warning, followed by parameter and return details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the next two emphasize the risk, and the last two document inputs/outputs 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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive deletion), rich annotations (including destructiveHint), and the presence of an output schema (returns a confirmation message), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, risks, parameters, and return value, providing all necessary context for safe agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'computer_id' and references 'ComputerIdInput.' However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what's implied by the parameter name (e.g., format, source like from 'orgo_list_computers' is in the schema). With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('a computer'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'orgo_restart_computer' or 'orgo_stop_computer' which are non-destructive operations. It precisely communicates the irreversible nature of the deletion.

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 permanently delete a computer) and implicitly suggests alternatives like 'orgo_stop_computer' or 'orgo_restart_computer' for less destructive actions. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives or specify prerequisites like needing the computer ID from 'orgo_list_computers'.

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