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 mentions 'Auto-detects workspace/user', which adds useful context about default behavior. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of entries, pagination). For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the core action and filtering capabilities. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying that auto-detection applies when parameters are omitted).

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters. It covers the purpose and some behavioral context (auto-detection) but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage constraints. For a retrieval tool in a server with many siblings, more guidance on output and differentiation would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'period filter' and 'Auto-detects workspace/user', which aligns with parameters like 'period', 'workspaceId', and 'userId' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Get' and resource 'time entries', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_detailed_report' or 'get_summary_report' by focusing on time entries rather than reports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_projects' or 'get_tags', which are also retrieval tools but for different resources.

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 by mentioning 'Supports period filter' and 'Auto-detects workspace/user', suggesting it's for retrieving time entries with optional filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_detailed_report' for more comprehensive data or 'get_summary_report' for aggregated insights. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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