Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior, which the description aligns with by implying a state-changing action (pressing keys). It adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing supported key types and combinations, though it lacks explicit rate limits or error handling details.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for args, returns, and examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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 moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters with examples, and return values. With an output schema present, it appropriately avoids re-explaining returns, and the annotations provide safety context, leaving no significant gaps for agent invocation.

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 fully compensates by explaining the 'params' input, including the 'computer_id' and 'key' fields with specific examples of valid keys and combos. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, ensuring the agent understands how to format inputs correctly.

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 with a specific verb ('Press') and resource ('keyboard key or combination'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_type (typing text) or orgo_click (mouse actions). The title 'Press Keyboard Key' reinforces this, making the function unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool by specifying it handles single keys and modifier combinations, with examples like 'Press Enter' or 'Press Ctrl+C'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. orgo_type for text input) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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