BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it 'Displays a macOS notification' and returns 'Confirmation of notification being displayed,' which clarifies the action and output. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like potential failures (e.g., if BTT isn't running), side effects (e.g., user interaction), or rate limits, leaving gaps despite 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 brief and structured into three clear parts: purpose, args, and returns. It uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and output, and the description could be more front-loaded with key details.

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 (1 parameter with nested object), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks context on errors, dependencies (e.g., BTT setup), or integration with sibling tools. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them.

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%, but the description lists parameters: 'Notification title, subtitle, sound, and optional image.' This adds some semantics beyond the schema's property names. However, it omits the 'connection' parameter entirely and doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., 'title' is required). The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool's purpose: 'Display a macOS notification via BTT.' It specifies the verb ('Display'), resource ('macOS notification'), and technology ('BTT'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like btt_trigger_action or btt_trigger_named, which might also involve notifications indirectly.

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 sibling tools, prerequisites (e.g., BTT must be running), or scenarios where this is appropriate (e.g., for user alerts vs. system events). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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