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 explains the cost-saving purpose, data preservation during shutdown, and restart capability. While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, the description provides practical implications. 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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and parameter documentation in three distinct sections. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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, rich annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), and existing output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage alternatives, behavioral implications, and parameter meaning without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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's Args section documents the single parameter's purpose and source ('Computer ID to stop', 'from orgo_list_computers'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Stop a running computer') and primary benefit ('to save costs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_restart_computer or orgo_delete_computer. It uses precise verb+resource language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'The computer can be restarted later with orgo_start_computer,' naming the alternative tool. It also implies when-not-to-use by noting data preservation, suggesting this is preferable to deletion tools. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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