BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this by explicitly stating 'This permanently removes the trigger' and emphasizing the need for correct UUID. It doesn't contradict annotations (which correctly mark it as non-readOnly and destructive) and provides additional behavioral insight about the irreversible nature of the operation.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, a critical warning, and brief parameter/return sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The warning is appropriately front-loaded for a destructive operation, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a destructive tool with good annotations and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the irreversible nature and UUID requirement well. The main gap is the incomplete parameter documentation (missing connection config details), but given the output schema exists and annotations provide safety context, it's reasonably comprehensive.

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 the full burden of parameter documentation. It mentions that 'params' contains the UUID of the trigger to delete, which provides basic semantics for the uuid parameter. However, it doesn't address the nested connection configuration object within params, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding despite the schema's structural details.

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 ('Delete a trigger from BetterTouchTool') and resource ('trigger'), distinguishing it from siblings like btt_update_trigger (update) and btt_get_trigger (read). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to permanently remove a trigger) and includes a WARNING about ensuring correct UUID, which implies caution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like btt_update_trigger for modifications instead of deletion, which prevents a perfect score.

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