RescueTime 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 that the tool 'Shows the daily productivity pulse with visual bars and calculates averages,' which adds some context about output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter details and usage context. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient and clear.

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 semantics, and usage context. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details, but the output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden.

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 semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'days' parameter as 'Number of days to look back' and provides a default (7) and max (14) value, which are not in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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 productivity pulse trend for the last N days.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('productivity pulse trend'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_today_summary by focusing on multi-day trends. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_hourly_productivity, which might also show trends over time.

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 with 'Useful for identifying patterns and trends over time,' suggesting when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_hourly_productivity or get_category_breakdown, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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