Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('JPEG image') and the temporal aspect ('current screen'), which aren't covered by annotations. While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, the description usefully explains the tool's purpose in a workflow context 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, usage guidance, args, returns, examples) and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, the parameter meaning, and the return format. The main gap is the lack of output schema documentation, but the description compensates adequately.

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 compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Computer ID to screenshot') and providing a source hint ('from orgo_list_computers') in the Args section. However, it doesn't fully document the parameter's format or constraints beyond what's implied, leaving some gaps despite the single parameter.

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 ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('computer's display'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_click or orgo_type that perform different interactions. It explicitly mentions the output format ('JPEG image'), which further clarifies its unique 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to see what's on screen before clicking or typing'), offering a clear alternative workflow. It also includes example prompts that reinforce appropriate usage contexts, helping the agent distinguish it from other display-related tools.

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