BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful context about what information is returned ('detailed information... including all its configuration and assigned actions') and the return format options, which goes beyond the 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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, usage context, Args section, and Returns section - all in 4 sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the parameter purpose. However, given the 0% schema coverage and complex nested parameter structure, it could provide more guidance on the connection configuration parameters that aren't mentioned in the description.

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 the full burden of parameter documentation. It mentions that 'params contains the UUID of the trigger to retrieve' and implies format options in the Returns section, but doesn't fully explain the nested structure (connection config, response_format) or provide syntax details. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Retrieve a specific trigger by its UUID') and resource ('trigger'), distinguishing it from siblings like btt_get_triggers (plural) which likely lists multiple triggers. It explicitly mentions retrieving detailed information including configuration and assigned actions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to get detailed information about a single trigger'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for single-trigger retrieval versus btt_get_triggers for multiple triggers, but doesn't make this distinction explicit.

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