BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation, which the description's 'Import' action aligns with (importing is typically additive). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't specify if the import overwrites existing presets, requires authentication via the connection config, or has side effects like triggering notifications. With annotations covering basic safety, the description provides some value but lacks depth.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section is misleadingly simplified (referring to 'params' as just a path), and the Returns section is vague ('Confirmation of import'). It's efficient but could be more precise.

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 (covering readOnly/destructive hints) and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail safety or return values. However, it's incomplete for a tool with 1 parameter that has 0% schema coverage and nested complexity—it should better explain the parameter structure and usage context to compensate.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'Path to the preset file' for 'params', but 'params' is a nested object with 'path' and 'connection' sub-properties per the schema. It fails to explain the 'connection' configuration or its defaults, leaving key semantics unclear and not compensating for the schema 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 action ('Import') and resource ('BTT preset from a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'btt_export_preset' beyond the obvious import/export distinction, nor does it specify what a 'BTT preset' entails in this context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid preset file format or BTT connection), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'btt_get_preset_details' or 'btt_export_preset' for preset management workflows.

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