Get goal progress for a Dietbox patient: completion percentages, streaks, recent activity.
Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| patient_id | Yes | ||
| patient_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate safe, idempotent read operation. Description adds that it returns specific progress data and supports batch execution via patient_ids, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 fluff. First sentence states purpose and outputs, second adds batch support. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Describes core outputs and batch capability, but omits details on timezone and account parameters. Lacks explanation of return structure since no output schema, but coverage is fair.
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?
With 0% schema coverage and 4 parameters, description only explains patient_ids for batch. Account and timezone parameters are left unexplained, so meaning is insufficiently added.
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?
Clearly states action (Get), resource (goal progress for Dietbox patient), and outputs (completion percentages, streaks, recent activity). Also mentions bulk support, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dietbox_list_goals.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., dietbox_list_goals). Does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.
Many tools have nearly identical descriptions, differing only by a single action name (e.g., dietbox_agenda_list vs dietbox_agenda_summary, multiple anamnesis read tools). This makes it hard for an agent to choose the correct tool. The splitting of CRUD operations into separate tools per action creates significant overlap.
Most Dietbox tools follow a consistent `dietbox_<entity>_<action>` snake_case pattern, but tools like `authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`, `report_bug`, `show_version`, and `toolkit_info` break this, making naming partially inconsistent. Overall, the pattern is clear for the core domain.
With 42 tools, the server is overburdened. Many tools are redundant due to splitting actions (e.g., three read tools for anamnesis), and non-domain tools (marketplace, bug reporting) inflate the count unnecessarily. A more streamlined set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.
The server covers a wide range of nutrition practice features: patients, appointments, anamnesis, anthropometry, chat, food diary, goals, finances, meal plans (read-only), prescriptions, and clinical records. However, notable write operations are missing (meal plans, goals, finance transactions), and some read-only tools lack corresponding edits.