Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it's a double-click action. It mentions the return value ('Confirmation of double-click action'), which is useful but doesn't elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or interaction specifics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 action, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently covers purpose, usage, and parameters in a compact form.

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 moderate complexity (GUI interaction), annotations cover safety hints, and an output schema exists (returns str), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action, usage, and parameters, though it could enhance context with more behavioral details (e.g., coordinate reference, error handling).

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%, so the description carries the burden. It lists parameters (computer_id, x, y) and their types, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., coordinate system origin) or constraints (e.g., valid computer_id formats), leaving some semantics implicit.

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 ('Double-click at (x, y) coordinates') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'orgo_click' (single click) and 'orgo_drag' (drag operation). It provides concrete use cases ('opening files/apps on desktop or selecting text'), 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 includes explicit usage context ('Use for opening files/apps on desktop or selecting text'), which helps the agent understand when to apply this tool. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'orgo_click' for single clicks, leaving some guidance gaps.

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