Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description aligns with by describing a 'start' action that initiates streaming. The description adds useful context about the one-stream-per-computer constraint and computer state requirement, but does not detail authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors beyond what annotations provide.

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 a clear purpose statement, usage constraints, parameter list, return info, and an example. It is appropriately sized, but the 'Args' section could be more concise by integrating with the schema details, and some sentences (e.g., the example) are slightly redundant.

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 (initiating a stream with multiple parameters), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, constraints, parameters, returns, and an example. With annotations providing safety context and an output schema indicating JSON return, the description adequately supplements structured data, though it could add more on error handling or stream management.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (all parameters are documented in schema), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section lists parameters with brief explanations and defaults, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. It provides a practical example for 'rtmp_url' but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter purposes or interactions.

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 RTMP streaming') and resource ('from a computer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'orgo_stop_stream' and 'orgo_stream_status'. It explicitly mentions streaming to platforms like Twitch and YouTube, providing a concrete use case.

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 ('Computer must be running. Only one stream per computer at a time.'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for starting streams versus stopping or checking status, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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