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-detects workspace' which adds some context about default behavior, but fails to disclose critical mutation traits: permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 - just 8 words in a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update a time entry by ID') and adds one useful behavioral note ('Auto-detects workspace'). Every word earns its place with zero 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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, or how it differs from sibling time-tracking tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is severely lacking.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - only implying that workspaceId has auto-detection behavior. No additional parameter semantics, constraints, or usage examples are provided, meeting 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 verb ('update') and resource ('time entry by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_time_entry' and 'delete_time_entry' by specifying update functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-like operations in the sibling list.

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 minimal usage guidance - only mentioning that it 'auto-detects workspace' which suggests some context about workspace selection. No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'log_time' or 'stop_timer' for time tracking operations, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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