NanoKVM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions clicking and optional movement, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., admin access), if it's safe or destructive (e.g., could trigger unintended actions), rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool interacting with a KVM system, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a brief, bullet-like parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a KVM interaction tool, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'button' is a mouse button with specific values, and 'x'/'y' are optional coordinates for movement before clicking. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail coordinate systems or units.

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: 'Click a mouse button, optionally at a specific position.' This specifies the verb ('click') and resource ('mouse button'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'nanokvm_move' or 'nanokvm_scroll'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'nanokvm_tap' (which might be similar), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 mentions optional coordinates but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., use for GUI interactions, avoid for keyboard-only tasks) or compare to siblings like 'nanokvm_tap' or 'nanokvm_send_key'. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage direction.

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