Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies this is a batch operation, mentions performance ('Computers boot in under 500ms each'), and indicates it returns a confirmation message. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 behavioral details, parameter explanation, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently uses bullet points for clarity. No wasted words.

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 (batch operation with one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (returns str), the description is complete. It explains the action, performance, parameters, and return value, leaving no gaps for agent understanding.

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 compensates by explaining the single parameter in the Args section: 'params (ProjectIdInput): Input containing: - project_id (str): Project ID'. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter type and structure, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond what the schema's minLength and title provide.

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 all computers') and resource ('in a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_start_computer (single computer) and orgo_restart_project (different operation). It provides precise scope with 'all computers simultaneously' and performance detail ('under 500ms each').

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 implies usage context through 'Batch operation to boot all computers simultaneously' and the example, suggesting it's for bulk operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like orgo_start_computer (individual) or orgo_restart_project (restart vs start), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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