Skip to main content
Glama

Dayze — Life Context

Place Visits

get_place_visits
Read-only

Count confirmed outings at a venue. Resolves aliases first; typed PlaceVisits are primary, and past non-todo events/GPS evidence for the canonical place are reconciled by day. count excludes plans, todos, and separately labelled reconstructed_candidates. Returns visit dates and evidence refs. ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
placeYes
place_idNo
person_idsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
placeYes
visitsYes
accountNoThe Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
confidenceNo
matched_viaNo
inspect_noteNoHow to cite: link each record with its inspect_url, never a link built from an id; which record types here have no Dayze page.
people_presentNo
resolved_placeNoCanonical place record.
confirmed_countNo
count_semanticsNo
matching_eventsNo
reconstructed_countNo
confirmed_visit_datesNo
resolution_candidatesNo
reconstructed_candidatesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / confirmed_count
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / confirmed_visit_dates
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / count_semantics
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / matched_via
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reconstructed_candidates
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": true,
      +    "description": "Unconfirmed completed-trip evidence with confidence and source; never included in count.",
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reconstructed_count
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / resolution_candidates
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": true,
      +    "description": "Ambiguous canonical place matches; count stays empty.",
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / resolved_place
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "description": "Canonical place record.",
      +  "type": [
      +    "object",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / visits / items / description
      Previous value: -"Normalized place visit. visit_id (= id) is the place_visits row id delete_place_visit takes; null on event/GPS evidence rows."New value: +"Confirmed same-day outing with visit_date and evidence_refs. A typed place_visits row is primary and carries visit_id (= id); linked event/GPS evidence is reconciled without increasing the count."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "display_name": {
      +      "description": "Account display name.",
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "handle": {
      +      "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "qa_fixture": {
      +      "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "handle",
      +    "display_name",
      +    "qa_fixture",
      +    "note"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / inspect_note
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "How to cite: link each record with its inspect_url, never a link built from an id; which record types here have no Dayze page.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / visits / items / description
      Previous value: -"Normalized place visit."New value: +"Normalized place visit. visit_id (= id) is the place_visits row id delete_place_visit takes; null on event/GPS evidence rows."
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context: alias resolution happens first, typed PlaceVisits take priority, other evidence is reconciled by day, and certain records are excluded. It also discloses cost ($0.10) and an API-key requirement, which annotations do not provide. Return format details like pagination or caps are not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences that front-load the primary action and exclusion rules; the cost/auth note is appropriately placed last. Some internal jargon (reconstructed_candidates, typed PlaceVisits) is unexplained but tolerated for a domain-specific tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since an output schema exists, return-value detail need not be spelled out, and the description nonetheless notes that visit dates and evidence refs come back. The main completeness gap is the total absence of parameter semantics for a five-parameter tool, which leaves an agent guessing about date range and person filtering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains any of the five parameters. The alias/canonical-place discussion loosely gestures at 'place'/'place_id', but 'from', 'to', and 'person_ids' – including whether the dates are inclusive and what person_ids filters on – are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (count confirmed outings at a venue) and clarifies what is excluded (plans, todos, reconstructed_candidates). It is distinguishable from siblings like log_place_visit, delete_place_visit, and get_location_history, though it never explicitly names an alternative read tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scope statements (confirmed outings, canonical place, exclusions), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance such as when to prefer get_location_history, get_location_context, or get_place. Cost and API-key requirements hint at when it is worth calling but are not framed as usage selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.