Skip to main content
Glama

Get Bevel macro goals

bevel_get_macro_goals
Read-only

Lists calorie, protein, carb, and fat goals with start and end dates, and identifies which goal is active on a specified day (defaults to today).

Instructions

Lists calorie/protein/carb/fat goals (each with a start and optional end date) and marks the one active on the given day.

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_macro_goals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDay to evaluate (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the data model: each goal carries a start date and an optional end date, and the result marks which single goal is active for the evaluated day – a substantive behavioral detail for interpreting the output.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the temporal/active-goal semantics. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety covered by annotations, the definition gives enough to call it correctly and to anticipate the returned fields and active-goal marker. Minor gaps remain around ordering of returned goals and handling when no goal is active, but nothing blocking.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single date parameter is fully documented with its pattern and today-default. The description's phrase 'active on the given day' slightly reinforces what the date controls, but adds little beyond the schema text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Lists) plus the exact resource (calorie/protein/carb/fat goals) and describes the shape of each entry (start date, optional end date). The read-only framing implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling bevel_set_macro_goals, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as bevel_set_macro_goals. The only hint is the phrase 'active on the given day', which implies point-in-time evaluation but leaves the agent to infer it.

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