A task list's timesheet (GET /lists/:id/timesheet), read-only: each shift (who, clock in, clock out, breaks, hours; an open shift and a never-clocked-out one are flagged) and per worker per day the regular, overtime and double-time hours under the project's labor rules (overtime after 10 h by default), with totals. Optional worker_id. Read tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | ||
| worker_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the return shape, that open shifts and never-clocked-out shifts are flagged, the default overtime threshold (10 h) and that hours are computed under the project's labor rules, plus the 'Read tier' access requirement. It stops short of noting any limits on range or result size, which keeps it off a 5.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and endpoint before the detail. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the nested parentheses make it heavier to parse than it needs to be.
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?
With no output schema and four safety annotations already present, the description does the job of explaining what comes back and what the flagged/derived fields mean. Only the identity semantics of the two parameters are thin, which is a minor gap for a two-param read tool.
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 carry the param burden. It only says worker_id is optional (implying narrowing to one worker); it never states that list_id is required or what identifier format either expects. Partial compensation for a complete coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — a task list's timesheet — and even pins the endpoint (GET /lists/:id/timesheet). The parenthetical enumerates the payload (shifts, breaks, hours, regular/overtime/double-time, totals), so an agent can distinguish this from any other get_* sibling without opening a schema.
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 'read-only' and 'Read tier' notes imply this is a reporting/retrieval call and 'Optional worker_id' implies the filtered variant, but neither is framed as when-to-use guidance. No sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. a worker passport or per-worker view), so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
