Dayze — Life Context

Save Daily Focus

save_focus

Set the user's focus items for a date (default today): the full list, up to three, which replaces that day's list. Each item: text, done. ($0.10; API key required)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "save_focus"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD. Default today.
`items`	Yes	Focus items for the day, up to three; replaces the day's list, e.g. [{"text":"Ship the draft"}].
`request_id`	No	Client idempotency key (retries return original result).
`idempotency_key`	No	Alias for request_id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No
`items`	No
`account`	No	The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
`message`	No
`provenance`	No	Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / items / description

Added value: +"Focus items for the day, up to three; replaces the day's list, e.g. [{\"text\":\"Ship the draft\"}]."

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / description

Added value: +"Focus item, e.g. {\"text\":\"Ship the draft\",\"done\":false}."

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / done / description
```
Added value: +"Whether the focus item is done, e.g. false."
```

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Existing focus item id, e.g. 3f2a1b4c-8d9e-6f01-c2b3-c4d5e6f70809."

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / text / description
```
Added value: +"Focus item text, e.g. Ship the draft."
```

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the most important behavioral fact: the call overwrites the existing day's list rather than merging. It also volunteers cost ($0.10) and an API-key requirement, which annotations cannot convey. The mild tension with destructiveHint=false is acceptable since re-saving restores the list, so this is not an annotation contradiction.

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?

A single dense sentence with the replacement semantics front-loaded, followed by a compact parenthetical for item shape, cost, and auth. The telegraphic phrasing is slightly clipped but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description covers the mutation semantics, default date, item cap, cost, and auth. Only edge behavior (e.g., invalid item ids, partial failure across items) is unaddressed, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents date, items, the three-item cap, and the idempotency aliases. The description merely restates the item shape ("text, done") and the replacement behavior already present in the items schema description, adding little new meaning.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Set the user's focus items for a date") and states the scope (a full day's list, max three). It contrasts implicitly with the sibling get_focus (set vs. get), but never names an alternative explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives one crucial usage constraint — this is a full replacement, not an append ("the full list... which replaces that day's list") — plus the default date. It does not say when to prefer this over get_focus or what to do if the agent only wants to update a single item, so guidance is 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.

All Dayze — Life Context tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.