Clockify MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new tag', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. The auto-detection note adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Create a new tag', 'Auto-detects workspace') adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, errors), output values, and comprehensive usage guidelines. The high schema coverage helps, but overall, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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 both parameters (workspaceId and name) with descriptions. The description adds 'Auto-detects workspace', which provides extra meaning for workspaceId's default behavior, but doesn't elaborate on name constraints or other semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new tag') and resource ('tag'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tags' by indicating a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_project' or 'create_task' beyond the resource type.

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 minimal guidance with 'Auto-detects workspace', hinting at when to use the workspaceId parameter, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions), and no alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. other tag-related tools). It lacks context for selection among siblings.

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