BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning the return format options (markdown or JSON), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 and appropriately sized with four sentences: purpose statement, return information summary, args explanation, and returns clarification. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more naturally. No wasted words, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), an output schema exists, and it's a simple read operation with one main parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, parameter intent, and return format options. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but otherwise provides sufficient context for agent selection and invocation.

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 compensates by explaining the 'params' parameter contains the preset name to query and mentions the response format options. However, it doesn't detail the connection configuration or other nested parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds some value but doesn't fully document all parameter semantics, especially for the complex BTTConnectionConfig object.

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: 'Get details about a specific preset' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('preset'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on preset details rather than triggers, variables, or clipboard operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with btt_export_preset or btt_import_preset which also handle presets.

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 when to use btt_get_preset_details versus btt_get_trigger, btt_get_triggers, or btt_list_named_triggers for related information, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the preset name. The only implied usage is when you need preset details, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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