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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-detection behavior, which is helpful, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted (list structure, pagination), or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about default behavior. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness but lacks details about return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or error handling. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds the auto-detection context ('defaults to active workspace'), which provides useful semantic meaning beyond the schema's technical description. 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 ('List users') and resource ('in workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling user-related tools (though none exist in the provided list), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 about when to use it ('Auto-detects workspace if not specified'), which helps the agent understand the default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for user-related operations, preventing a perfect score.

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