Peggle AI 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., system access), potential side effects (e.g., unintended UI changes), or error handling (e.g., invalid coordinates). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to understand at a glance, with zero wasted content.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, which are essential for safe and effective use. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'x' and 'y' as coordinates. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate system details (e.g., screen pixels, relative positioning) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 specific action ('Moves the mouse to the specified coordinates and performs a left click'), which includes both the verb ('moves', 'performs') and the resource ('mouse', 'left click'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'capture_screen' by focusing on interaction rather than observation.

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, such as the sibling 'capture_screen' or other potential interaction tools. It lacks context about scenarios where clicking at coordinates is appropriate, such as in automation or UI testing, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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