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 offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a GUI interaction but doesn't disclose what happens after the click (e.g., opens a context menu, requires focus), potential side effects, or system dependencies. This is inadequate for a tool that performs an action with no safety 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 with just three words, front-loading the core action. There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 action-oriented nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error conditions, and integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only vaguely implies parameters via 'coordinates'. It doesn't explain what x and y represent (e.g., screen pixels, relative positions), their range, or units. This leaves key semantic details undocumented.

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 'Right-click at coordinates' clearly states the action (right-click) and target (coordinates), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mouse_click' (presumably left-click) and 'mouse_double_click' by specifying the click type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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. It doesn't mention when right-clicking is appropriate compared to other mouse actions or keyboard tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a visible interface or active window.

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