Orgo MCP Server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns 'comprehensive information' and includes an access URL for 'direct browser viewing', which helps the agent understand the output's utility. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'access URL' in the first two sentences), slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it earns its place with useful details.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (covering read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (detailed in the Returns section), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, return values with examples, and behavioral context, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by detailing the parameter in the 'Args' section: 'params (ComputerIdInput): Input containing: - computer_id (str): Computer ID'. It adds meaning by explaining the parameter's purpose and referencing orgo_list_computers as a source for the ID. However, it does not fully elaborate on format constraints beyond what the schema's minLength implies, keeping it at baseline 3.

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: 'Get full details for a computer including access URL' and 'Returns comprehensive information about a computer including its access URL for direct browser viewing.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('computer'), and scope ('full details' including URL), distinguishing it from siblings like orgo_list_computers (which lists computers) and orgo_get_project (which gets project details).

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 usage: it's for retrieving details of a specific computer, including its access URL. The examples ('Get details for computer abc123', 'What's the URL for my computer?') illustrate when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using orgo_list_computers to find computer IDs first), which prevents a score of 5.

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