ByteBot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns {x, y} coordinates'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential errors, performance characteristics (e.g., speed), or system dependencies, which could be important for a tool interacting with system input.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the return value. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and return format but lacks context on error handling or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how coordinates might be used with bytebot_move_mouse). For a simple tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in operational guidance.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's function and output. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it provides clear semantics without redundancy.

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 ('Get the current mouse cursor position') and the resource ('mouse cursor'), distinguishing it from siblings like bytebot_move_mouse (which moves the cursor) and bytebot_click (which clicks at a position). It precisely defines the tool's function without redundancy.

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 it retrieves the 'current' position, suggesting it's for real-time cursor tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like bytebot_move_mouse or bytebot_click, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.

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