BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the JSON source mechanism and mentions the return value, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (implied by connection config), potential side effects of triggering actions, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict 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 perfectly structured with three focused sentences: purpose statement, JSON acquisition method, and parameter/return explanation. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (triggering arbitrary actions via JSON), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core mechanism and JSON source. With annotations covering safety profile and an output schema presumably describing returns, the main gap is lack of guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like btt_trigger_named.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'params' contains 'the action JSON definition' and how to obtain it. However, it doesn't detail the structure of the nested connection configuration or wait_for_reply parameter. The baseline is 3 since the description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('trigger') and resource ('any BTT predefined action') with the mechanism ('using a JSON definition'). It distinguishes from siblings like btt_trigger_named (which likely uses names rather than JSON) and btt_execute_trigger (which might have different semantics).

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 ('Trigger any BTT predefined action using a JSON definition') and how to obtain the required JSON ('by right-clicking a configured trigger in BTT'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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