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. It discloses the return structure (productivity pulse, total time, breakdowns, percentages), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a bulleted list of return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It clearly explains the purpose, usage context, and output structure, which aligns well with the provided context signals and output schema support.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but this is appropriate as there are no parameters to document, and it effectively compensates by detailing the output structure.

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 specific action ('Get today's complete RescueTime productivity summary') and resource ('RescueTime productivity summary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activity_data or get_category_breakdown by focusing on a daily aggregated overview rather than granular data.

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?

Explicitly states 'This is the recommended daily check-in tool,' providing clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The context implies it's for high-level daily summaries rather than detailed historical or categorical analysis offered by sibling tools.

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