BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

While annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return format ('List of named triggers with their names and UUIDs') and clarifies the scope ('all named triggers'). This goes beyond what annotations provide about safety and adds useful operational details.

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 with three focused sentences: purpose statement, context about named triggers, and return specification. Every sentence adds essential information with zero redundancy or filler content. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), a detailed input schema with 100% parameter documentation, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns:' statement), the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, context about what named triggers are, and return format. No additional information is required for this read-only listing operation.

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 but provides no parameter information. The schema comprehensively documents the single 'params' object with its nested properties (connection configuration and response_format), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('List all named triggers') and resource ('configured in BetterTouchTool'), with additional context about what named triggers are. It distinguishes from siblings like btt_get_trigger (singular) and btt_get_triggers (general triggers) by focusing specifically on named triggers from the 'Other' tab.

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 about when to use this tool ('triggers configured in the 'Other' tab that can be called by name from scripts or other actions'), which implicitly distinguishes it from general trigger tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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