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 discloses that 'The URL expires after 1 hour,' which is not covered by annotations (which only indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent operations). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, leaving some gaps. 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 purpose, followed by key behavioral details and usage guidelines in a structured format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, non-destructive), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (expiry), parameter semantics, and return values. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return format further, and annotations handle safety aspects adequately.

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 well by explaining the parameter semantics: it specifies that 'params' contains 'file_id' and notes 'File ID (from orgo_list_files or orgo_export_file)' in the schema, adding meaning about the source of the ID. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Get a signed download URL for a file') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'orgo_list_files' (used to find file IDs) and 'orgo_export_file' (another file operation). It uses precise verbs and identifies the resource (file).

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 provides usage guidance: 'Use orgo_list_files to find file IDs' specifies a prerequisite, and it distinguishes this tool from alternatives by focusing on download URLs rather than other file operations like deletion or export. This helps the agent know when to use this tool versus others.

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