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 only states the basic action ('Get') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries data.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, with no wasted text.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, which are crucial for a retrieval tool. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient, especially compared to sibling tools that might have similar 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'expand'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'id' (e.g., numeric ID) or examples for 'expand'. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific mileage vehicle by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_mileage_vehicles' (which likely lists all vehicles) or 'get_mileage_by_id' (which retrieves mileage entries rather than vehicles), missing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving a single vehicle's details after listing vehicles with 'get_mileage_vehicles', or clarify its role compared to other 'get_*_by_id' tools like 'get_mileage_by_id'. The description offers no context or exclusions for usage.

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