Cronometer MCP

get_daily_macro_targets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve daily calorie, protein, carbohydrate, and fat targets for a chosen date or today, so you can plan meals and track intake against Cronometer goals.

Instructions

Calorie, protein, carb and fat targets that apply on one day.

Args: date: YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_daily_macro_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful default-to-today behavior and enumerates which macros are returned, but says nothing about how targets are resolved when no explicit target exists for that date.

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 prose is a single front-loaded sentence stating what is returned, followed by a minimal args block. No filler, though the 'Args:' formatting is a code-doc artifact rather than agent-friendly phrasing.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the one optional parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is that nothing tells the agent why this differs from get_macro_targets, which matters for tool selection in a large sibling set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: it gives the YYYY-MM-DD format and states the default is today. That is exactly the semantics an agent needs for the single optional argument.

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 names a specific resource and its contents: calorie, protein, carb and fat targets for a single day. It's clear what the tool returns, but it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from the sibling get_macro_targets, so an agent can't tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

The only usage information is that the date defaults to today. There is no statement of when to choose this over get_macro_targets, get_targets or set_macro_targets, and no note that it is a read-only lookup scoped to one day versus a general target query.

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

Deploy Server