BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about format options (plain text, HTML, images as base64) and the ability to return base64 encoding, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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, capabilities, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for format examples. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality, parameter intent, and return value at a high level. However, it could benefit from more detailed usage examples or error handling information to achieve a perfect score.

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 provides a high-level overview of parameters ('Format to retrieve and whether to return as base64') and return values ('Clipboard content'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it lacks detailed syntax or format examples. Given the schema's lack of descriptions, the description compensates moderately, warranting a baseline 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current clipboard content'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'btt_set_clipboard'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other clipboard-related tools that might exist in other contexts, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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. While it mentions retrieving content in various formats, it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other clipboard access methods or when to choose specific formats. This lack of contextual usage advice results in a score of 2.

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