macOS GUI Control MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this returns absolute or relative coordinates, coordinate system used, refresh rate considerations, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is too minimal for a tool with potential behavioral nuances.

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 perfectly concise at four words, front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), and contains zero wasted words. Every element earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks context about what exactly is returned (e.g., coordinates format, units) and how it behaves in different environments. For a tool that might have platform-specific behavior, this is insufficient.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any, making it appropriately minimal in this dimension.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current cursor position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mouse_move' or 'mouse_drag' which also relate to cursor positioning, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With sibling tools like 'mouse_move' (which changes position) and 'screen_get_size' (which might provide context for positioning), there's no indication of when this read-only query is appropriate versus other mouse or screen operations.

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