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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying the types of files included (uploaded and exported) and mentioning pagination behavior, which goes beyond what annotations provide. 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 a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more concise as they largely repeat schema information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage, parameter meanings, and return format, making it fully adequate for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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 documents all parameters (computer_id, limit, offset, response_format) with clear explanations. However, this information is redundant with the schema's property descriptions, and the description doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the structured schema fields.

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 ('List all files') and resource ('associated with a computer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_download_file and orgo_delete_file. It also specifies the scope by mentioning both uploaded files and exported files, providing precise differentiation.

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 when to use this tool ('List all files associated with a computer') and mentions related tools (orgo_download_file, orgo_delete_file) for subsequent actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like orgo_upload_file, which could provide more comprehensive guidance.

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