BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about what the tool actually does (re-executes scripts to update display) and mentions the return value (confirmation). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the functional behavior and output.

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: purpose statement first, usage context second, then parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability.

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 tool with idempotent behavior and an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the core purpose well. However, the complete omission of the connection parameter documentation creates a significant gap, especially since this tool likely requires network/authentication configuration.

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 full burden for parameter documentation. It only mentions 'UUID of the widget to refresh' but completely omits the 'connection' parameter (BTTConnectionConfig with host, port, shared_secret, use_cli). This leaves critical connection configuration undocumented.

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 ('refresh a script widget to re-execute its scripts') and the resource ('widget'). It distinguishes from siblings like btt_update_widget (which likely modifies settings) by focusing on re-execution rather than configuration changes.

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 ('force a widget to update its display by running its assigned scripts again'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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