Retrieve a list of clients from your Clockify workspace. Filter by name, include archived clients, and paginate results.
List clients in the workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by client name | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| archived | No | Include archived clients | |
| pageSize | No | Results per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't state that results are paginated, that archived clients are excluded by default, or what happens when the workspace has many clients. 'List' implies a read, but the agent must infer this.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, appropriate for a simple list tool. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true 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?
For a 4-parameter paginated list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits pagination semantics, default filtering of archived clients, and any sense of what a client record contains. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents name, page, archived, and pageSize with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the defined baseline of 3.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clients') with workspace scope, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from any sibling, though the sibling list covers entirely different resources (workspaces, projects, tags), so confusion risk is low.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any preconditions. There is no sibling that lists clients, so routing is unlikely to be wrong, but the description offers nothing about appropriate contexts or defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.