BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful context about JSON format requirements and copying from existing triggers, but doesn't mention authentication needs (shared_secret), rate limits, or what happens on duplicate triggers. With annotations covering basic safety, this adds moderate behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized at 5 sentences, though the JSON format explanation could be slightly more concise. Most sentences earn their place by providing necessary information.

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 moderate complexity (write operation with JSON input), annotations provide basic safety info, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter concepts. The main gap is incomplete parameter coverage (missing connection config explanation), but otherwise provides reasonable context for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It mentions 'trigger JSON definition' and 'optional parent UUID' which map to trigger_json and parent_uuid parameters, but doesn't address the connection parameter at all. The description adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Add a new trigger') and resource ('to BetterTouchTool'), distinguishing it from siblings like btt_update_trigger (modify existing) or btt_delete_trigger (remove). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 through the instruction to copy JSON format from existing triggers, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like btt_update_trigger or btt_trigger_named. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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