Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds valuable context: it's a batch operation affecting all computers simultaneously, which implies potential downtime or coordination needs. It doesn't contradict annotations and supplements them with operational 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 sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (batch restart operation), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (Returns: str). The description provides purpose, parameter guidance, and an example, but could benefit from more on error conditions or prerequisites. It's largely complete but has minor gaps.

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 explaining that params contains project_id, referencing orgo_list_projects for sourcing. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples beyond the minimal guidance. With one parameter, it meets baseline expectations.

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 ('Restart all computers') and resource ('in a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_restart_computer (which restarts individual computers) and orgo_start_project/stop_project (which manage project state rather than computer restarts). The title annotation reinforces this purpose.

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 as a 'Batch operation to restart all computers simultaneously,' which implicitly suggests when to use it versus orgo_restart_computer. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for partial restarts) or direct alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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