Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (may have side effects), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds value by specifying it stops 'RTMP streaming' (a specific protocol) and mentions the return format ('JSON with final stream status'), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return format. No redundant or verbose language is present.

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 (mutation with one parameter) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, parameter, and return format, and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on error conditions or streaming state prerequisites.

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 documenting the single parameter (params with computer_id) and its purpose ('Computer ID'). It adds context by noting computer_id comes from 'orgo_list_computers', providing usage guidance. However, it doesn't elaborate on the ComputerIdInput structure beyond what's implied, keeping it minimal.

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 RTMP streaming') and target resource ('from a computer'), distinguishing it from siblings like orgo_start_stream (starts streaming) and orgo_stream_status (checks status). It uses precise technical terminology (RTMP) and identifies the exact operation.

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 by specifying 'from a computer' and referencing computer_id from orgo_list_computers, suggesting prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like orgo_stop_computer (which stops the computer entirely) or provide clear exclusions for when streaming isn't active.

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