BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), and the description adds useful context: it describes the return behavior ('Result of the trigger execution (if wait_for_reply is True)') and notes triggers can perform 'any sequence of actions.' However, it doesn't detail potential side effects, error handling, or performance implications beyond what annotations cover.

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 a clear purpose statement, context, and separate Args/Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be more integrated into the flow.

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 (1 parameter with nested schema), annotations covering key behaviors, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, parameter intent, and return conditions, though it could better address sibling tool differentiation and edge cases.

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 explains 'params' contains 'trigger_name and whether to wait for completion,' clarifying the purpose of the nested parameters. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail the 'connection' sub-parameter or default values.

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: 'Execute a named trigger by its name' with additional context about where triggers are configured. It distinguishes from siblings like 'btt_execute_trigger' by specifying 'named' triggers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'btt_trigger_action' which might be similar.

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 context by mentioning triggers are 'configured in BTT's 'Other' tab' and can perform 'any sequence of actions,' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'btt_execute_trigger' or 'btt_trigger_action.' No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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