TimeChimp 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 'query,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format (e.g., what data is returned, pagination behavior). For a query tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters (e.g., 'id' for expense ID, 'top' for max records). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'skip' and 'top' for pagination). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Query status history modification records of an expense.' It specifies the action ('query'), resource ('status history modification records'), and target ('an expense'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_expense_by_id' or 'get_expenses,' which focus on expense data rather than status history.

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 an expense ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_mileage_status_history' for mileage records. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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