dietaai_diary
Read-onlyIdempotent
Resumo do diário (journal) de um dia, no formato YYYY-MM-DD.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
Dieta.ai
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) cover the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the date format and states it's a summary, but doesn't describe what the summary contains, possible errors, or dependencies. Since annotations handle core safety, a 3 is appropriate—it provides some extra context but no deep behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the parameter format. There is zero waste—every word adds value. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. It adequately states the purpose and parameter format. However, it doesn't clarify what the diary summary includes or how it differs from sibling tools like diaries, which might affect completeness for an agent deciding between tools. Given the low complexity, a 3 is fair.
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?
The schema only declares 'date' as a string with no description or format. The description explicitly specifies the format YYYY-MM-DD, which is essential information beyond the schema. For a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates, making the parameter actionable.
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 clearly states the tool returns a summary (Resumo) of a day's journal, with the date format specified. It identifies the resource (diary) and action (summary), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like dietaai_diary_logs or dietaai_diary_scheme, which could have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating which scenarios call for this tool. The description implies usage for a single day but gives no comparison with related diary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.