Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the computer must be running, restricts exports to '/home/user', and notes the download URL expires in 1 hour. No contradiction with 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 with clear sections: purpose, constraints, return info, and parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., path example repeated in schema), but overall efficient and readable.

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 (export with constraints), annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), and an output schema exists (returns str), the description is fairly complete. It adds operational constraints and parameter semantics, though could better differentiate from siblings.

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 explains parameters: 'computer_id (str): Computer ID' and 'path (str): Path to file (e.g., 'Desktop/results.txt')'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't fully detail path constraints or examples beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 tool's purpose: 'Export a file from the computer's filesystem.' It specifies the verb ('export') and resource ('file'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'orgo_download_file' or 'orgo_upload_file', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some context: 'The computer must be running. Files can only be exported from /home/user.' This implies when to use (computer running, file in /home/user) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use or name alternatives like 'orgo_download_file' for comparison, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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