yazio-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the summary includes (e.g., calories, nutrients), resulting in a baseline score with minimal added value.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the simple single parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for a basic read operation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the summary contains (e.g., format, data fields), leaving a gap in completeness for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a specific date' but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as date range constraints or default behaviors, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('daily nutrition summary') with a specific constraint ('for a specific date'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_consumed_items' or 'get_user_exercises' that might also provide daily data, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_consumed_items' for detailed item lists or 'get_user_goals' for goal-related summaries, leaving the agent with no explicit usage context.

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