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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'shows' categories with time and productivity classification, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify data freshness, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args:' section efficiently documents the parameter, and the additional sentence provides useful context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for categories).

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter usage, and output context (categories and productivity classification). However, with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like data sources or limitations.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'date_str' accepts 'today', 'yesterday', or 'YYYY-MM-DD' formats, clarifying usage that isn't in the schema. Since there's only one parameter and the description fully documents its semantics, it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Get time spent by category' with specific categories listed (Software Development, Communication, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on categorical breakdown rather than hourly data, trends, or daily summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool.

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 by mentioning 'high-level categories' and 'productivity classification,' suggesting it's for categorical analysis rather than time-series or granular data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_data or get_productivity_trend, nor does it mention 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.