Clockify MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a list operation, but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what permissions are required, if it's rate-limited, or what the return format looks like. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly 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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits like pagination or permissions, and while it hints at the return type ('tasks'), it doesn't detail the structure or fields. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 'projectId') with descriptions. The description adds value by reinforcing the need to use 'get_projects' for the 'projectId', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('tasks for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_time_entries' or 'get_summary_report', which might also involve task-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 by instructing to 'Use get_projects first to get project ID,' which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_time_entries' or 'get_detailed_report' for task-related queries, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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