Clockify 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 mentions the tool's purpose and usefulness but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds contextual value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like permissions or rate limits, and it lacks details on return values (e.g., what data is returned about users). For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured coverage beyond the input schema, 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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'hours_threshold' beyond 'specified number of hours'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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: 'Find users who have logged more than a specified number of hours per week in the past month.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('users'), and criteria ('logged more than a specified number of hours per week in the past month'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_undertime_users' or 'find_user_time_entries', which prevents a score of 5.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for identifying overworked team members.' This suggests when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'find_undertime_users' for underworked users). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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