TimeChimp MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks 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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral context. For a read operation in a system with many siblings, more guidance on usage and output would be beneficial to ensure correct agent invocation.

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 documents both parameters ('id' and 'expand') fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'expand' or format examples. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific invoice by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('invoice'), and specifies it's for a specific item by ID. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_invoices' (plural) beyond the ID specificity, which is somewhat implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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 sibling tools like 'get_invoices' for listing multiple invoices or clarify if this is for retrieving a single known invoice versus searching. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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