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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it searches across a date range with defaults (last 30 days), returns specific fields (descriptions, projects, durations), and uses partial/case-insensitive matching for user names. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in the second. Both sentences are essential: the first defines the tool's function, and the second clarifies scope and output. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 moderately complete for a read tool with 5 parameters. It covers the purpose, basic behavior, and output fields, but lacks details on return structure, pagination, or error cases. For a tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies date-range filtering and mentions default timeframes, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific action ('Find all time entries'), target resource ('for a specific user by their name'), and scope ('Searches across a date range... returns all time entries with descriptions, projects, and durations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_project_time_entries' (which filters by project) and 'search_time_entries' (which likely has broader search criteria).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when searching for time entries by user name across a date range. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'search_time_entries' might be better for non-user-based searches), but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer usage.

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