BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations provide substantial behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds some context about executing 'all actions assigned to a trigger' and mentions the return value, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like error conditions, side effects, or performance characteristics beyond what annotations already cover.

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 efficiently structured with three clear sections: purpose statement, args explanation, and returns statement. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with minimal waste. The formatting with clear section headers enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (mutation operation with connection configuration), the description is incomplete. While annotations provide safety information and an output schema exists, the description fails to document critical connection parameters and provides no guidance on tool selection among similar siblings. For a tool that requires network configuration and authentication, more context would be helpful.

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 responsibility for parameter documentation. It only mentions that 'params' contains 'the UUID of the trigger to execute,' completely omitting the complex 'connection' configuration object with host, port, shared_secret, and use_cli parameters that are critical for tool operation. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Execute all actions assigned to a specific trigger') and identifies the resource ('by UUID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'btt_trigger_action' or 'btt_trigger_named', which appear to have overlapping functionality.

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. With multiple trigger-related siblings (btt_trigger_action, btt_trigger_named, btt_get_trigger, btt_update_trigger), there's no indication of when this specific UUID-based execution approach is appropriate versus other trigger invocation methods.

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