Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bevel MCP

Bevel MCP

by JoshPopov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Bevel Journal data

bevel_get_journal
Read-only

Fetch paginated Bevel Journal data, optionally filtered by date or factor key, to review Boolean entries and raw collections for sync or reporting.

Instructions

Pulls Journal data via GET /api/journal/v1/user-journal-data/pull, following pagination. Boolean entries are returned as {day, factorKey, value, ...}, optionally filtered by date and factor; value is null and cleared is true for a factor that was cleared in the app. Other collections (defaults) are returned raw because their schema has not been captured yet.

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": "bevel_get_journal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoOnly list Boolean entries for this local day (YYYY-MM-DD).
limitNoPage size (default 100, as the app uses).
maxPagesNoMaximum pages to fetch (default 20).
factorKeyNoOnly list Boolean entries for this preset factor key.
lastSyncDateNoUnix ms. Only records changed after this instant are returned. Default 0 = full history.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses automatic pagination following, the per-entry shape, and the important cleared-factor semantics (value null with cleared true). It also warns that non-Boolean collections come back raw and unvalidated, which is a useful caveat for an agent interpreting output.

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?

Two compact sentences front-loaded with the action and endpoint, followed by the return-shape caveat. Nothing is obviously padded, though the endpoint path is arguably low-value for an agent that cannot call HTTP directly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and five optional parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it describes the Boolean entry shape, the cleared-entry signal, and the fact that defaults are returned raw. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that date and factorKey apply only to Boolean entries (a meaningful scoping nuance), but says nothing about lastSyncDate, limit, or maxPages beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pulls Journal data') and anchors it to the exact endpoint path, plus names the entity type returned (Boolean entries) and a secondary collection (defaults). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like bevel_get_custom_journal_types or bevel_get_food_logs, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

Implies usage through 'optionally filtered by date and factor' and by noting pagination is followed automatically, which tells the agent it need not loop. However it never states when to prefer this over the sibling journal tools (custom journal types, set/clear boolean), leaving the selection decision implicit.

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