macOS GUI Control MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like coordinate system (screen vs. relative), movement speed, whether it's immediate or animated, error conditions, or platform dependencies. The description is minimal but doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Move cursor' (action), 'to position' (target), '(without clicking)' (key differentiation). No wasted verbiage.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks essential context like coordinate system, movement behavior, error handling, or return values. For a tool that manipulates system state, this leaves significant gaps.

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, but the description adds minimal context by implying x and y are position coordinates. However, it doesn't specify coordinate origin, units (pixels vs. normalized), valid ranges, or interpretation. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description provides basic meaning but insufficient detail for confident usage.

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 action ('Move cursor') and target ('to position'), with the parenthetical '(without clicking)' distinguishing it from clicking tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mouse_drag or other movement-related siblings beyond the no-click clarification.

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 for cursor positioning without activation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over mouse_drag, mouse_get_position, or other positioning alternatives. The '(without clicking)' hint suggests avoiding it when clicking is needed, but lacks comprehensive when/when-not rules.

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