Clockify MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'auto-detects workspace' as behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted, whether pagination exists, or any rate limits. For a reporting tool with 4 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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 (one sentence) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes one important behavioral note. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a reporting tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about return format, data scope, or behavioral constraints. With no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be expected for proper agent usage.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying grouping functionality ('grouped by project/user') and workspace auto-detection, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool generates a 'summary report grouped by project/user' with 'auto-detects workspace' functionality, providing specific verb (get) and resource (summary report). It distinguishes from siblings like get_detailed_report by specifying 'summary' nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other reporting tools.

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 for generating grouped summary reports and mentions auto-detection of workspace, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_detailed_report or get_time_entries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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