BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning the file export purpose but not detailing aspects like authentication needs (implied by connection config) or rate limits. With annotations covering key safety traits, the description provides some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, usage, Args, Returns) and uses only four sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the Args section could be more detailed given the parameter complexity.

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 properties), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in description), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters at a high level, and return value, though it could benefit from more detailed parameter explanations to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description briefly mentions 'Preset name and export options' in the Args section, which partially maps to the nested 'params' object properties (name, output_path, compress, include_settings, connection). However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving many parameter details unclear. The baseline is 3 since the description adds some semantic context but doesn't fully explain the parameters.

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 ('Export a BTT preset to a file') and resource ('BTT preset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'btt_import_preset' beyond the export/import distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 implied usage context ('Useful for backing up configurations or sharing presets'), which gives some guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'btt_get_preset_details' for viewing without exporting, leaving room for improvement.

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