time_list_activitiesLists time-tracking activities (e.g., Design, Development) and their IDs for accurate time entry selection.
Lists the time-tracking activities (Design, Development, …) with their ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results carry ids, which is modest extra context for a read-only lookup; no auth, caching, or ordering behavior is described.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it only partially does so (ids, example names). For a trivial parameterless reference-list tool this is minimally adequate, but it does not say whether other fields, sorting, or completeness are guaranteed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's mention of ids refers to return values rather than inputs and therefore neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.
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 gives a specific verb ("Lists") and a precise resource ("time-tracking activities"), even naming example values (Design, Development) and noting that ids are returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like time_list_entries and time_log, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, what it is a prerequisite for (e.g. obtaining activity ids for time_log or time_update_entry), or which alternative to prefer. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the mention of ids.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.