ByteBot 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 the action ('bring an app to the foreground') but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it requires the app to be running, potential errors (e.g., if app not found), or system-specific behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes value with no redundancy, making it efficiently structured 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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage. However, as a system interaction tool with no annotations, it lacks completeness in behavioral details like error handling or platform dependencies, which would enhance agent understanding.

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 100%, with the parameter 'name' documented as 'Application name' with examples. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or additional context, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('switch to') and resource ('application window'), specifying it brings an app to the foreground. It distinguishes from siblings like bytebot_move_mouse or bytebot_type_text by focusing on window management rather than input actions or task operations.

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?

It provides clear context ('Use this to bring an app to the foreground'), indicating when to use it for foregrounding applications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as bytebot_execute_workflow for broader automation.

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