Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Shows checkpoints and votes awaiting human approval', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps in transparency and 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'group' can be a slug or ID and that 'limit' has a default of 50, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug patterns) or the effect of null limit, leaving some ambiguity. Since there are only 2 parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 ('List pending Human-in-the-Loop (HIL) verifications') and the resource ('for a group'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pending verifications, though it doesn't explicitly compare to tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_proposals'. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'pending' verifications but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this is for monitoring approvals or if other tools handle completed verifications, leaving usage context implied at best.

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