Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies performance characteristics ('Boots in under 500ms'), mentions the need to obtain computer IDs from another tool, and provides example usage. While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, the description enriches understanding with practical 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 practical guidance, parameter explanation, and examples. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the information is organized logically for quick comprehension.

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 (state-changing operation), the description provides good context about prerequisites, performance, and usage. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema documenting the return type, the description focuses appropriately on operational guidance rather than repeating structured 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the computer_id parameter comes from orgo_list_computers and providing an example. However, it doesn't fully document the parameter's semantics beyond what's implied in the schema structure, leaving some gaps in understanding.

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 ('Start a stopped computer') and identifies the resource ('computer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_restart_computer and orgo_stop_computer. It uses precise language that goes beyond just restating the tool name.

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 ('Start a stopped computer') and explicitly references an alternative tool for finding computer IDs ('Use orgo_list_computers to find computer IDs'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. orgo_restart_computer for a running computer).

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