get_goals_progressProgress toward the subscriber’s business goals: each outcome, its success signals, current vs. target, and percent complete. Answers "how am I tracking against my goals this year?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcomes | Yes | ||
| signalCount | Yes | ||
| outcomeCount | Yes | ||
| overallProgressPercent | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the returned data (outcomes, success signals, targets, percentage complete), which is beyond what annotations provide.
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, no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it.
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 and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 progress toward business goals, including outcomes, success signals, current vs. target, and percent complete. It answers a specific user question and is distinct from sibling tools like get_business_snapshot.
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 directly states the use case: answering 'how am I tracking against my goals this year?' This provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a specific financial, client, project, or tax aspect with clear, distinct descriptions. Overlaps like get_cost_summary vs get_expense_summary are resolved by explicit scope differences (costs include mileage and bills; expenses are line-item). No two tools serve the same purpose.
All 25 tools follow a strict `verb_noun` pattern: `get_` for detailed summaries and `list_` for enumerations. No mixed conventions (camelCase, abbreviations) are present, making the pattern predictable for an agent.
At 25 tools, the set is on the larger side but fully justified by the breadth of the domain (financial summaries, clients, projects, taxes, contacts, time, mileage). Each tool covers a distinct slice; minor redundancies (e.g., cost vs expense summary) are acceptable due to nuanced differences.
The surface covers essential business operations: revenue, costs, expenses, cash, invoices, bills, projects, clients, contacts, taxes, time, mileage, and goals. Notably missing are any mutation tools (create/update), but the server appears intentionally read-only (analytics/reporting). For that purpose, the coverage is strong.