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 implies a mutation operation ('mark as done'), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on habit streaks), error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of 'updated events and series info' in returns adds some behavioral context, but more specifics would improve transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and parameter/return 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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does well by explaining the parameter's semantics and hinting at return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, error handling) to be fully complete, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 explains the 'event_id' parameter by specifying it's 'of the specific habit instance' and sourced 'from list_personal_events', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID, string length) or validation rules, leaving some gaps.

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 specific action ('mark as done'), the resource ('habit instance'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'skip_habit' or 'mark_task_complete' by focusing on habit completion rather than skipping or task-related actions. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use it ('to mark today's scheduled habit event as completed') and references a sibling tool ('list_personal_events') as the source for the event_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'skip_habit' for skipping) or mention alternatives for non-today events, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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