Fetch the user's currently stored birth info. Use this before intentions_set_birth_info when updating an existing profile so you can send back a complete merged payload. Returns { hasProfile, birthInfo: { year, month, day, hour, minute, gender } | null } where any unknown field (e.g. unknown hour) is returned as null. No quota cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description details the return format including null handling for unknown fields and states 'No quota cost.' This adds significant value by clarifying response structure and cost implications.
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: the first states the primary action, the second provides usage guidance and return details. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return type and field structure, including null handling. It also mentions no quota cost. Could be improved by describing error conditions, but for a read-only fetch tool this is adequate.
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 no parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter info; baseline 4 for zero parameters 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 fetches the user's currently stored birth info, distinguishing it from sibling tools like intentions_ask_* (for individual fields) and intentions_set_birth_info (for updating). The verb 'fetch' and resource 'birth info' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use this before intentions_set_birth_info when updating an existing profile to send a merged payload. Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for new profiles), though this is implied by the update workflow.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.