List Clockodo projects, filtering by customer, name, or active status to find specific time-tracking records. Supports pagination for large result sets.
Lists projects. Optional: page, customers_id filter, name filter, active-only flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | filter by name substring | |
| page | No | ||
| active | No | only active projects | |
| customers_id | No | only projects of this customer |
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, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the available filter dimensions but discloses no other behavior such as pagination behavior, default page size, or ordering. This is adequate for a read-only list tool but not rich.
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?
One short sentence front-loads the core action and then lists filters without wasted words. All content is relevant and efficiently 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?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with four optional filters, the description covers the key selection dimensions. However, with no output schema, it does not disclose response shape or pagination semantics, and 'page' is left to inference. This is mostly complete but has minor gaps.
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 descriptions already cover name, active, and customers_id (75% coverage); the description mostly restates them as 'filter' or 'active-only'. The 'page' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, though its purpose is self-evident. The description adds no format, defaults, or edge-case semantics.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists projects') and the optional filters clarify scope. It is distinct from sibling list tools like clockodo_list_customers or clockodo_list_users, which target different resources. No ambiguity exists about what the tool returns.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative, and no exclusion criteria are given. The optional-filter phrasing implies usage for retrieving projects with optional narrowing, but guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.