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 this is a 'batch operation' affecting 'all computers' and mentions the cost-saving purpose. While annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world, the description provides practical operational context that helps the agent understand the tool's impact and rationale.

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: purpose statement first, followed by behavioral context, sibling reference, parameter explanation, return value, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, and the information is front-loaded 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 (batch operation with cost implications), the description provides complete context: purpose, behavioral traits, sibling relationships, parameter usage, return values, and examples. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema present, the description focuses exactly on the value-added information an agent needs.

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 showing the parameter structure in the Examples section ('params with project_id="proj_123"'), but doesn't fully explain the ProjectIdInput wrapper or provide additional semantic context beyond what's implied by the tool name. The baseline is 3 since the schema itself has good descriptions for the nested project_id parameter.

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 all computers') and resource ('in a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_stop_computer (which stops individual computers) and orgo_restart_project (which restarts instead of stops). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('Batch operation to stop all computers and save costs') and provides a clear alternative ('Computers can be restarted later with orgo_start_project'), naming the specific sibling tool. This gives complete guidance on both the primary use case and the complementary operation.

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