OrbStack MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it returns a string result, which is useful context not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what '启动结果' specifically entails (e.g., success message, error). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 brief with a clear main sentence, but the Args/Returns sections are redundant with the schema and output schema. The sentence '启动指定的 Linux 机器。' is front-loaded and efficient, but the structured parts add verbosity without new information, reducing overall conciseness.

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 1 parameter, annotations with safety hints, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and return type, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., machine must exist), or side effects. For a mutation tool, more context on behavior and usage would improve completeness, though annotations help.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only states '包含机器名称' (contains machine name), which partially explains the 'params' object but doesn't clarify the nested 'name' parameter's purpose, format, or constraints (e.g., max length 100). It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('启动' meaning 'start') and the resource ('指定的 Linux 机器' meaning 'specified Linux machine'). It distinguishes from siblings like orbstack_machine_stop, orbstack_machine_list, and orbstack_machine_info by specifying the start operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from orbstack_start (which appears to be a general start command) or orbstack_machine_run (which might execute commands).

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 prerequisites (e.g., machine must exist, be stopped), exclusions (e.g., don't use if already running), or comparisons to siblings like orbstack_machine_stop, orbstack_machine_run, or orbstack_start. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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