Clink MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond milestones. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the formatting includes indentation that might be unnecessary, and the second sentence is brief but could be integrated more smoothly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'project_id' in the Args section, but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides a title ('Project Id') and type. The description doesn't clarify format, constraints, or examples (e.g., numeric vs. string ID). Baseline is 3 since it compensates slightly but not fully for the low coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a project including its milestones', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists multiple projects) or 'get_milestone' (which focuses on individual milestones). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_proposal' or 'get_clinks' in terms of resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), contrast with 'list_projects' for browsing, or specify scenarios like retrieving full project details versus summaries. Usage is implied by the name but not articulated.

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