RescueTime MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves and ranks data by duration and includes productivity classification, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data availability, permissions needed, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by a clear Args section with defaults, and ending with additional context about ranking and classification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and output characteristics (ranking, productivity classification). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'date_str' accepts specific formats ('today', 'yesterday', or 'YYYY-MM-DD') and 'limit' controls the number of activities shown, which clarifies usage beyond the basic schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid date ranges or limit bounds.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top activities/applications by time spent'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it shows specific applications/websites ranked by duration with productivity classification. It doesn't just restate the name.

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 context through the mention of 'productivity classification' and ranking by duration, suggesting it's for analyzing time usage patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like get_category_breakdown or get_hourly_productivity, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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