The signed-in user's current city and favorite cities with coordinates and timezones, ready to feed into the public tools. Requires OAuth (scope profile:read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses OAuth scope (profile:read) and user-specific data, but does not describe return format, error cases, or pagination. Enough for basic transparency but gaps remain.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, output, and auth requirement with no wasted words.
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?
Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter read tool and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned and what authentication is required. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use it correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about the output, though parameter semantics are not applicable here.
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 the tool retrieves the signed-in user's current city and favorite cities with coordinates and timezones. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_profile or get_my_history.
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 implies a use case ('ready to feed into the public tools') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. This is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: year comparison vs. single-year vs. single-day vs. multi-day forecast vs. pure sun times vs. current status; personal history/profile tools are cleanly separated from public location tools. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, set_, log_, search_, update_, configure_, estimate_, compare_). This makes the toolset highly predictable and easy to navigate.
At 15 tools, the count sits at the upper edge of the ideal range, but each tool carves out a distinct niche within the vitamin D/sun exposure domain. The scope is broad, yet no tool feels extraneous; a slightly lower score reflects the borderline-high number.
The domain is well covered: location search, sun times, vitamin D windows for day/year/forecast, session estimation, personal profile read/update, history logging and correction. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no favourite city management, no way to delete history), but core workflows are fully supported.