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 includes a 'WARNING' about permanent removal from cloud storage, which reinforces the destructive nature. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description provides specific risk information, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and warning, followed by structured Arg/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the warning is critical, and the parameter guidance is necessary. No redundant information is present.

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 (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and rich annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description is largely complete. It includes a warning, parameter guidance, and return value note. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, but could benefit from more usage context.

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 compensates by explaining the parameter structure: it clarifies that params contains file_id and specifies sources for obtaining it (orgo_list_files or orgo_export_file). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail validation rules.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file from storage'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_download_file or orgo_upload_file. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for file deletion but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like orgo_delete_computer or orgo_delete_project. It mentions obtaining the file_id from orgo_list_files or orgo_export_file, which hints at prerequisites but doesn't clarify contextual alternatives.

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