Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite of claiming the clink first and the optional reply feature, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens upon completion. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 prerequisite and optional feature. The parameter explanations are brief and relevant. It could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines from parameter details, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basics like purpose and parameter meanings. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or confirmation of success, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'clink_id' is identified as 'The clink ID to complete', and 'response' is described as 'Optional reply clink to send to the original sender'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by explaining what each parameter represents, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints.

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 action ('Mark a claimed clink as completed') and identifies the resource ('clink'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'claim_clink' by specifying the prerequisite of having claimed the clink first, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other clink-related tools like 'release_clink' or 'send_clink'.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool ('You must have claimed the clink first'), which is a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'release_clink' for unclaiming), leaving some guidance incomplete.

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