Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('JSON with stream status') and the possible status values ('active, idle, or terminated'), which aren't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations—the 'Get' action aligns with readOnlyHint.

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: it starts with the core purpose, then details the check, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: JSON with stream status'), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the parameter meaning, and the return format, addressing key context without redundancy.

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 parameter structure: 'Input containing: - computer_id (str): Computer ID'. It adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the computer_id comes from 'orgo_list_computers'. However, it doesn't detail the ComputerIdInput object beyond this, leaving some semantics implicit.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current streaming status of a computer' and 'Check if a stream is active, idle, or terminated.' This specifies the verb ('Get', 'Check'), resource ('streaming status of a computer'), and outcome (status values). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'orgo_start_stream' or 'orgo_stop_stream', but the purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a computer ID from 'orgo_list_computers'), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'orgo_start_stream' or 'orgo_stop_stream'. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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