BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains persistence behavior (surviving BTT restart vs runtime-only) and mentions the return value confirmation. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description provides specific implementation details about persistence that aren't captured in structured fields.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, behavioral context, Args, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place, though the Args section could be more informative. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and annotations provide safety/behavior hints, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, persistence behavior, and basic parameter overview. For a tool with good structured data support, this description provides adequate contextual information without being overly verbose.

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. While it mentions 'Variable name, value, type, and persistence setting' in the Args section, this is just a list without explaining what each parameter means, their formats, or how they interact. The schema provides detailed descriptions, but the tool description itself adds minimal semantic value beyond naming the parameters.

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 ('Set a BTT variable') and the target ('to a specified value'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'btt_get_variable' by focusing on setting rather than retrieving. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other variable-related tools if they exist.

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 mentions that variables can be persistent or runtime-only, which provides some context for when to use persistence settings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'btt_update_trigger' or 'btt_set_clipboard', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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