BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool 'opens BTT and navigates to the specified element,' indicating UI interaction and potential side effects (application focus change), which annotations don't cover. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with purpose, action, and parameter/return sections in four concise sentences. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are redundant with the schema and could be omitted for better front-loading of 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (UI interaction, nested parameters) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and behavior well, but the parameter gap (missing 'connection' details) prevents a perfect score, as the schema alone doesn't fully compensate due to 0% description coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'UUID of the element to reveal' for the 'params' parameter, but the schema reveals 'params' is a nested object with 'uuid' and 'connection' sub-properties. The description fails to explain the 'connection' configuration or its defaults, leaving significant parameter semantics 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 ('reveal a trigger or element in the BetterTouchTool UI') and resource ('trigger or element'), distinguishing it from siblings like btt_get_trigger (read-only) or btt_update_trigger (modify). The phrase 'for editing' further clarifies the intent beyond simple viewing.

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 implies usage when needing to locate and edit a specific element in the BTT UI, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like btt_get_trigger (for details without UI navigation) or btt_update_trigger (for direct modification). The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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