Retrieves Apple Journal entries from the last N days, including today, as full-text JSON so MCP clients can review or search journal activity by date.
Entries from the last N days (inclusive of today), with full text, as JSON.
days=1 is today only; days=7 is today plus the six days before it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | 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 safety is covered. The description adds that results come back as JSON with full entry text and that the window is inclusive of today, but it is silent on the default limit (200) and any truncation behavior, which is the main behavioral risk for a list tool.
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, followed by the one clarification an agent actually needs. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.
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-shape explanation is not required, and the days window is fully specified. However, for a list-style tool defaulting to 200 items, the absence of any mention of limit or truncation leaves a real gap that could cause silent under-retrieval.
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 carries the full burden. It handles days well with a concrete inclusive-window example, but says nothing about limit, leaving one of two parameters completely undefined in both schema and description.
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 names the resource (entries) and its scope (last N days, inclusive of today, full text, JSON), which is a specific and checkable definition. It does not explicitly contrast with list_entries or search_entries, so the agent must infer that this is the time-windowed variant.
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 days semantics ('days=1 is today only; days=7 is today plus the six days before it') imply the intended use case of retrieving recent activity, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over list_entries or search_entries. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.