Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
selfos-mcp

selfos-mcp

by AmineBenaceur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

log_habit

Log a habit as done or missed for a chosen date, including an optional note or the reason it was skipped, to keep daily tracking accurate.

Instructions

Log a habit occurrence as done, or missed with the reason the user gave.

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": {
      "habit": "<habit>",
      "done": "<done>"
    },
    "name": "log_habit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today)
doneYes
noteNo
habitYes
reasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, closed-world write operation. The description adds useful semantics about recording done versus missed and capturing the user's reason, but it does not disclose duplicate-handling, idempotency, or what happens to existing entries.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and outcome states efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to identify the habit, how dates work, what note is for, or how repeated logs behave.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for the done/missed state and the reason field. It leaves the habit identifier, date behavior, and note parameter unexplained beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: logging a habit occurrence as done or missed. This is clearly distinct from create_habit and list_habits, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 implies the tool should be used when recording whether a habit was completed or missed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over create_habit, update_goal, or list_habits. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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