reclaim-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. It discloses that time is ignored in date parameters and explains the 'thin' parameter's effect on returned data, adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation-free 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently documents parameters and returns in clear sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains parameters and return values adequately. The output schema existence means return details aren't needed, but slight gaps remain in behavioral transparency (e.g., error cases).

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 meaningful semantics for all parameters: clarifies date/time handling for 'start' and 'end', explains optional filtering for 'calendar_ids' and 'event_type', and details the 'thin' parameter's impact. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully document all possible 'event_type' values.

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 tool's purpose: 'List calendar events within a time range.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('calendar events'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_personal_events' or 'get_event', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_personal_events' or 'get_event', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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