MCP Remote macOS Control Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and environment variable usage, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a remote control tool.

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 action and key features. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 remote control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like authentication requirements, error conditions, return values, and how scaling interacts with source dimensions. The context signals indicate moderate complexity, but the description doesn't adequately address it.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at coordinate scaling but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Perform a mouse scroll'), target resource ('on a remote MacOs machine'), and key functionality ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying scrolling rather than clicking, moving, or other mouse actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 'Uses environment variables for connection details,' which implies prerequisites but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mouse_click or mouse_move. No context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions is given.

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