Clockify MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search behavior (phrase matching, cross-user scope) but doesn't mention important behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose and primary parameter, the second clarifies scope and behavior. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the what and basic how, but lacks information about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be important for an agent to use it effectively.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'search phrase' which aligns with the required search_phrase parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 ('search time entries'), resource ('time entries'), and scope ('by description phrase', 'across all users', 'containing the search phrase'). It distinguishes from siblings like find_user_time_entries (user-specific) and find_project_time_entries (project-specific) by emphasizing cross-user search capability.

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 about when to use this tool: for searching time entries by description phrase across all users. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the cross-user scope differentiates it from user-specific sibling tools like find_user_time_entries.

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