TimeChimp MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails—whether it's a read-only operation, what data is returned, error handling for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with potential side effects or constraints.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word contributes directly to stating what the tool does.

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 explain what data is returned, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like read-only nature. For a tool that likely returns user details, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively without trial and error.

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 both parameters ('id' and 'expand'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for the 'expand' parameter or ID format constraints. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 user by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_users' (which retrieves multiple users) by specifying retrieval of a single user. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieving user details), which prevents 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 sibling tools like 'get_users' for listing multiple users or 'get_user_by_id' versus other 'get_*_by_id' tools for different resource types. There's no context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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