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 only states the tool queries records, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), error handling, or return format. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the query returns (e.g., list of status changes with timestamps). Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand the tool's full behavior and results.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'filter' or 'orderby' expressions work in practice). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide extra value.

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 a mileage entry.' It specifies the verb ('Query'), resource ('status history modification records'), and scope ('of a mileage entry'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_expense_status_history' or 'get_mileage_by_id', which would be needed for 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid mileage entry ID), compare it to similar tools like 'get_expense_status_history', or specify use cases (e.g., auditing changes). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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