Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that projects have unique slugs within groups and slugs auto-generate from title if not provided, adding useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or what the creation response includes, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining optional notes). It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter creation tool.

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, 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and some behavior (slug uniqueness/auto-generation), but lacks permission requirements, error handling, or creation constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 5 parameters: explains 'group' accepts slug or ID, 'title' is required, 'description' optional, 'slug' auto-generation behavior, and 'color' format with example. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new project in a Clink group', specifying that projects organize milestones and track related work. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' (read) and 'update_project' (modify) by focusing on creation.

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 implies usage when needing to create a project within a group, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_project' or prerequisites. It mentions the group context but lacks when-not scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools.

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