MCP Remote macOS Control Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' which adds useful context about coordinate transformation, but fails to describe critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, how errors are handled, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, or what visual feedback occurs. For a remote control tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Perform a mouse drag operation'), specifies the target context ('on a remote MacOs machine'), and highlights the key feature ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

For a 9-parameter remote control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and scaling feature, but lacks information about error conditions, security requirements, visual feedback, or what constitutes successful execution. The high parameter count and remote operation context warrant more comprehensive guidance.

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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'automatic coordinate scaling' which relates to the source_width/source_height parameters, but doesn't explain the scaling algorithm or provide additional parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Perform a mouse drag operation'), target resource ('on a remote MacOs machine'), and unique feature ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remote_macos_mouse_move' by specifying drag-and-drop functionality rather than simple movement or clicking.

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 through 'automatic coordinate scaling' and the remote MacOS focus, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remote_macos_mouse_move' or 'remote_macos_mouse_click'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are mentioned.

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