Deactivate a Clockodo time entry after user confirmation. The entry remains in reports marked as deactivated.
DEACTIVATES a time entry (Clockodo has no hard delete — the entry stays in reports flagged 'deactivated'). Ask the user to confirm before calling. Requires 'confirm': true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | must be true; the user must have approved the deactivation explicitly |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with annotations declaring destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description goes beyond them by explaining the real behavioral effect: the entry is not hard-deleted but remains in reports flagged 'deactivated'. It also adds the operational requirement of user confirmation. This provides genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey, with no contradiction.
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?
Two sentences carry all essential information: the behavioral distinction, the no-hard-delete consequence, and the confirmation prerequisite. The most important word 'DEACTIVATES' is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place with zero filler.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what action is taken, what the side effect is (stays in reports), and the required confirmation. It does not explicitly discuss return values or failure modes, but those are not needed given the schema and annotations. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly in most realistic scenarios.
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 coverage is only 50% — the 'confirm' parameter is well-described in the schema, but 'id' has no description. The tool description indirectly clarifies that 'id' refers to a time entry, and it reinforces the confirm requirement, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Given the low coverage, it partially compensates but does not fully bridge the gap.
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 a specific action ('DEACTIVATES a time entry') on a specific resource, and immediately distinguishes the tool from a hard delete by explaining Clockodo has no hard delete. This makes it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from siblings like clockodo_create_entry or clockodo_clock_delete.
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 provides clear usage context: it tells the agent to ask the user for confirmation before calling and emphasizes the 'confirm' parameter. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., using clockodo_update_entry to set a status), but its role as the deactivation/soft-delete mechanism is implied strongly enough for an agent to select it appropriately. Missing explicit exclusions prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.