Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions the return value ('confirmation of scroll action'), which is useful since annotations don't cover output. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., page position changes), error conditions, or performance implications, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 (interactive UI action) and annotations covering basic hints, the description is minimally complete. It explains parameters and return value, but lacks context on integration with siblings (e.g., scrolling after clicking) or operational constraints. The output schema exists, so describing returns is redundant, but overall completeness is adequate with room for improvement in usage scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It effectively explains all three parameters (computer_id, direction, amount) with clear semantics: computer_id identifies the target, direction specifies scroll axes, and amount defines intensity with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could elaborate on parameter interactions (e.g., how amount scales).

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 action ('scroll the page') and the resource ('page'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'orgo_click' or 'orgo_drag' by focusing on scrolling rather than clicking or dragging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible UI interaction tools beyond the basic verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active computer/project), compare to similar tools like 'orgo_drag' for scrolling, or specify scenarios where scrolling is appropriate (e.g., navigating long pages). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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