Cronometer MCP

create_macro_template

Idempotent

Save a named macro target template with calorie, protein, carb, and fat goals, and optionally set it as the weekly default for chosen days.

Instructions

Save a new macro target template, and optionally schedule it.

Args: template_name: Name for the template; must not already exist. calories: Energy target in kcal. protein_grams: Protein in grams. carbs_grams: Net carbs in grams. fat_grams: Fat in grams. days: Also make it the weekly default on these days: "all", "weekdays", "weekends" or e.g. "Mon,Wed,Fri".

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": {
      "template_name": "<template_name>",
      "calories": "<calories>",
      "protein_grams": "<protein_grams>",
      "carbs_grams": "<carbs_grams>",
      "fat_grams": "<fat_grams>"
    },
    "name": "create_macro_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`calories`	Yes
`fat_grams`	Yes
`carbs_grams`	Yes
`protein_grams`	Yes
`template_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the template name must not already exist (a duplicate-name error condition) and supplying 'days' has the side effect of making the new template the weekly default. A minor tension exists between 'must not already exist' and idempotentHint, but the duplicate-name rejection is consistent with non-duplicating behavior rather than contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The summary sentence comes first and the argument notes follow in a tight, scannable list where each line documents a distinct field. It is slightly docstring-formatted rather than prose, but no sentence is wasted and the optional-vs-required distinction is visible.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the mutation semantics are covered by annotations plus the stated uniqueness constraint and scheduling side effect. What remains unstated is minor: error behavior for malformed 'days' strings and whether the schedule overwrites an existing weekly default.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the 'days' parameter has no enum, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it gives units for each numeric field (kcal for calories, grams and explicitly net carbs for carbs) and supplies accepted 'days' forms including 'all', 'weekdays', 'weekends' and a comma-separated weekday example. This adds meaning the bare schema does not contain.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Save a new macro target template') plus an optional side effect ('optionally schedule it'), so an agent immediately knows what is created. It does not distinguish itself from nearby tools such as set_macro_targets or create_recipe, leaving some ambiguity about which one to reach for.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings. The only contextual cue is the optional 'days' scheduling behavior, which hints at usage but does not route the agent between this tool and set_macro_targets or set_weekly_macro_schedule.

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

Deploy Server