Clink 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 key behavioral traits: the default filtering behavior ('shows clinks addressed to you or unaddressed'), the auto-claim functionality, and the prevention of duplicate work. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when clinks are claimed.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are organized in a clear Args section. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining the tool's purpose, parameters, and key behaviors. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent semantic context for all 4 parameters: explains what 'status' filters by, clarifies the meaning of 'for_me', describes the behavioral impact of 'claim', and specifies what 'limit' controls. Each parameter gets clear operational meaning beyond just its name.

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 with specific verbs ('check', 'auto-claim') and resources ('inbox', 'clinks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_clinks' by focusing specifically on the user's inbox and pending items, and from 'claim_clink' by combining listing with optional claiming.

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 the tool ('check your inbox for pending clinks') and guidance on parameter usage ('Use this when you intend to process the clinks immediately'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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