Cronometer MCP

edit_biometric

Idempotent

Correct a recorded biometric value by providing its ID and the new amount, optionally specifying the date of the entry.

Instructions

Change the value of a recorded biometric.

Args: biometric_id: The biometric ID, from get_food_log. amount: The corrected value, in the unit the entry already uses. date: Date the entry is on as YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today).

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": {
      "biometric_id": "<biometric_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "edit_biometric"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`amount`	Yes
`biometric_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds some behavioral detail—the amount is a corrected value in the entry's existing unit, and date defaults to today—but does not disclose side effects or authorization needs.

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?

One clear introductory sentence followed by a compact argument list with no filler. Every line adds information beyond the schema.

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 simple three-parameter update with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It misses usage exclusions and includes a possibly incorrect source for biometric_id, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting all three parameters: ID source, unit-preserving amount, and date format/default. However, the claim that biometric_id comes from get_food_log is questionable given sibling tools like get_biometrics and list_biometrics, which could mislead an agent.

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 clear action and object ('Change the value of a recorded biometric'), making it obvious this is an update operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like edit_food_entry or remove_biometric, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The wording implies the tool is for an existing biometric entry, but it never states that add_biometric or remove_biometric are the alternatives for other operations.

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

Deploy Server