Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
selfos-mcp

selfos-mcp

by AmineBenaceur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

log_goal_checkin

Log a goal check-in by name or title, optionally include a metric value and date, and get the updated pace.

Instructions

Log a check-in on a goal (by name or title), optionally with the metric value. Returns updated pace.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "goal": "<goal>"
    },
    "name": "log_goal_checkin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today)
goalYes
noteNo
valueNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds only that it returns updated pace and optionally accepts a metric value; it does not clarify whether check-ins are idempotent, additive, overwriting, or permission-gated.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the action, goal identification, optional metric value, and return behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the core action and return value, but leaves open the semantics of the note field and how check-in values interact with goal progress beyond the vague phrase 'updated pace.'

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'goal' (by name or title) and 'value' (optional metric value), and the schema documents 'date' defaults to today, but the 'note' parameter remains entirely undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Log a check-in on a goal,' and adds scope details such as goal identification by name or title and optional metric value. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_goal, update_goal, and log_habit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description makes the general usage clear—logging a goal check-in—but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of update_goal or create_goal, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools