BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (correct for a write operation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations - it mentions 'various formats including plain text and HTML' which provides useful implementation detail, but doesn't describe error conditions, permissions needed, or system-specific behaviors. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and appropriately sized at 4 sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds format details, followed by parameter and return value sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter section could be more informative given the schema coverage gap.

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 safety profile), an output schema (handling return values), and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and format options but lacks usage guidance, detailed parameter explanations, and system-specific considerations that would be helpful for a clipboard manipulation tool.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. The description mentions 'Content to set and format' which maps to the 'params' object containing 'content' and 'format' fields, but provides no details about the connection configuration parameter or format options. It adds some meaning 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 tool's purpose: 'Set the clipboard content' with the verb 'set' and resource 'clipboard content'. It distinguishes from sibling btt_get_clipboard by being the write operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The description is specific about what the tool does but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 when this tool is appropriate versus other clipboard-related tools (like btt_get_clipboard) or when not to use it. There's no context about prerequisites or constraints beyond what's implied by the action itself.

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