Run read-only ClickUp API GET requests to retrieve tasks, lists, comments, and workspace data; inspect operation schemas first.
Execute a catalog GET operation. Inspect its schema first. Returns {status, data}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| path_params | No | ||
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The mention of GET is consistent with the annotations but redundant.
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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a usage hint and return format. However, its extreme brevity leaves important gaps that could be filled without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
The tool is a generic API wrapper with three parameters and 0% schema coverage. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description fails to explain when to use this tool versus siblings or what the parameters do, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
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 0%, meaning the three parameters (query, path_params, operation_id) are completely undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter's purpose or format, leaving agents without guidance on how to supply them.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a catalog GET operation.' It distinguishes this read tool from the write sibling by specifying GET. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the other read-related siblings like clickup_get_operation or clickup_search_operations.
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 only guidance is 'Inspect its schema first,' which is a preparation step, not a condition for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explanation of when to choose clickup_read over clickup_get_operation or clickup_search_operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.