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 mentions the tool lists workspaces and hints at its use for obtaining IDs, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether it returns all workspaces at once (e.g., pagination), what data fields are included, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 adds value: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides practical usage advice, 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what data is included in the list) and behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions, which are important for completeness even in simple tools. This makes it just sufficient but with clear gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameters, earning a high score. A perfect 5 is reserved for cases where parameter semantics are explicitly addressed when needed.

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 ('all workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace_users' or 'get_clients' that might also relate to workspace data, 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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Call first if you need workspace IDs,' which suggests this tool should be used early in workflows to obtain IDs for other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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