Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the API key requirement (auth needs), mentions pagination behavior, and specifies the return format options, enhancing behavioral understanding without contradicting 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, returns, args, examples) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults directly rather than repeating schema 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 moderate complexity (1 nested param, no output schema provided in context), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, return behavior, and examples. With annotations handling safety aspects and no output schema to explain, the description fills most contextual gaps effectively.

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 must compensate. It provides a structured Args section detailing limit, offset, and response_format with default values and constraints, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully explain the nested params object or ResponseFormat enum semantics, leaving some gaps.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'available AI models through OpenRouter', distinguishing it from siblings like orgo_ai_completion (which uses models) and other list tools (computers, files, projects). It specifies the scope (400+ models) and connection to OpenRouter, making the purpose specific and 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to list models for use with orgo_ai_completion. It also provides prerequisites (requires OpenRouter API key) and includes an example usage pattern ('List available AI models' -> use with defaults), giving clear guidance on context and alternatives.

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