NanoKVM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an emulation action (touchscreen/mouse) and mentions coordinate dependencies on environment variables, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what the output schema might return, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by coordinate context and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (coordinate-based emulation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and coordinate system, but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., effects, error cases) since annotations are absent, though the output schema may mitigate this.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters (x and y) with clear semantics: coordinates in screen pixels based on environment variables, including edge definitions (0 = left/top, screen_width/height = right/bottom). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Tap at a specific screen position') and the resource ('touchscreen/mouse emulation'), distinguishing it from siblings like nanokvm_click, nanokvm_move, or nanokvm_send_key by focusing on coordinate-based tapping rather than clicking, moving, or keyboard input.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for tapping at specific screen coordinates in a KVM environment), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like nanokvm_click for different interaction types, though the distinction is implied by the tool names.

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