Skip to main content
Glama

Intentions MCP Server

by io.github.intentions-me

intentions_energy_chart

Read-only

Call when the user wants a visual overview rather than a narrative answer ("show me this week", "chart for today", "next 12 months", "看一下图"). Returns an ASCII chart: hourly = 12 two-hour blocks of one day, weekly = 7 days, yearly = 12 months. The hourly mode emits the same hour-resolution scores as intentions_ask_hour and is gated behind the Pro subscription on the same terms — on the free tier it returns a subscription_required error whose payload suggests weekly / yearly chart modes or intentions_ask_day as alternatives. weekly and yearly are always free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD. Default: today
periodYesWhich chart to render: `hourly` = 12 two-hour blocks of one day (Pro-gated), `weekly` = 7 days, `yearly` = 12 months.
birthInfoNoOptional override. If provided, all 6 fields required: { year, month, day, hour, minute, gender } — use null for unknown hour/minute/gender. Omit to use the stored profile.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns an ASCII chart, hourly mode is gated behind Pro subscription, and free tier gets a subscription_required error with alternative suggestions. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear front-loaded 'when to call' statement, followed by details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, explaining modes, gating, and alternatives.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers chart output, subscription model, error handling, and parameter usage (birthInfo overrides, default date). It provides all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context beyond parameter descriptions, such as explaining the gating for hourly and the behavior of birthInfo (use null for unknown fields). It also clarifies the meaning of the period enum values in the context of chart blocks.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing a visual overview via ASCII charts for different periods (hourly, weekly, yearly). It distinguishes from narrative answers and sibling tools like intentions_ask_hour by noting that hourly mode emits the same hour-resolution scores as that tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (user wants visual overview, with example phrases) and provides guidance on alternatives: for free tier with hourly mode, it suggests weekly/yearly charts or intentions_ask_day. It also notes that hourly is Pro-gated.

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

All Intentions MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct time granularity (hour, day, month, year) or a specific function (chart, profile management). No two tools overlap in purpose; the descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'intentions_<verb>_<noun>' pattern. The verb for time queries is uniformly 'ask', and profile tools use 'get'/'set'. The 'energy_chart' tool is the only slight deviation but still readable and fits the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is an ideal size for this domain. Each tool serves a well-defined purpose without unnecessary redundancy or gaps, covering time queries at multiple granularities, visual charts, and profile management.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the intended functionality: asking about timing at hour, day, month, and year levels; generating visual charts; and managing user profile. No obvious dead-ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources