Retrieve Apple Journal entries within an inclusive local-date range as JSON with full text, enabling date-based review or processing of journal content.
Entries in a date range with full text, as JSON.
Dates are YYYY-MM-DD in local time, and both ends are inclusive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| until | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — local-time interpretation of dates and inclusive bounds on both ends — but says nothing about the default limit of 200 or whether results are truncated, which materially affects how an agent interprets a response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the date semantics that would otherwise cause errors. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness comes at the cost of the limit and sibling-routing information noted elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 no explanation, and the date conventions are well covered. The gaps are the undocumented limit/truncation behavior and the absence of any disambiguation from recent_entries and search_entries, which matters for a tool with four similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 burden: it does clarify the format and inclusive semantics for since/until, which is real added meaning. However, the limit parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three parameters entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the resource (entries) and the scoping mechanism (a date range) plus the return shape (full text, JSON), which is enough to know what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like recent_entries or search_entries, leaving the agent to infer which one fits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The date-range framing implies the usage context — pull entries bounded by since/until — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no named alternative. An agent choosing between this, recent_entries, and search_entries gets no routing help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.