TimeChimp 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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if ID doesn't exist), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any unnecessary information or redundancy.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of having 2 parameters and being part of a large sibling toolset, more contextual information would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (id and expand). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'expand' does, provide examples, or clarify ID format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 resource ('a specific customer by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_customers' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single customer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_contact_by_id' or other entity-specific getters, which keeps it from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_customer_by_id' instead of 'get_customers' (for bulk retrieval) or other entity-specific getters like 'get_contact_by_id'. There's also no information about prerequisites, error conditions, or performance considerations.

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