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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states this is 'low-level' without explaining what that means operationally (e.g., requires manual ID specification vs. automatic detection, potential for errors if wrong IDs are provided). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 just two brief sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the action and providing critical usage guidance. There is zero wasted text, and the most important information (the alternative tool) is front-loaded.

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 apparent complexity (stopping a timer with ID parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool and provides crucial sibling differentiation, but fails to explain behavioral implications of being 'low-level' or what happens when the tool executes.

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 fully documents both parameters (workspaceId and userId) with their types and default behaviors. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('timer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'timer' refers to in this context (e.g., a time-tracking timer) or what stopping entails, which prevents a perfect 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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Prefer stop_current_timer instead.' This clearly indicates when NOT to use this tool and names a specific alternative, which is ideal for helping an agent choose between sibling tools.

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