Daykeeper MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

daykeeper_operations_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the status of a single Daykeeper operation using its UUID; this read-only lookup does not poll, retry, or modify the operation.

Instructions

Read one durable operation. Does not poll, retry, or modify the operation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operationId": "<operationId>"
    },
    "name": "daykeeper_operations_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operationId`	Yes	Exact Daykeeper resource UUID; access is checked by the API.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`effect`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool will not poll or wait for the operation to progress, which matters for how an agent should interpret a returned status.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with the key non-behavior in second position. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. The only remaining gap is that "durable operation" is never defined or linked to the flow/tenant concepts used by siblings, but that is minor for a simple getter.

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% with a single, well-documented operationId (UUID pattern plus access-check note). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one durable operation") that clearly identifies the action. However, it does not name or contrast itself with any sibling such as daykeeper_flows_get or daykeeper_tenants_get, so differentiation relies on the name alone.

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?

"Does not poll, retry, or modify" implies a single-shot snapshot read, which is useful inferred guidance. But no when-to-use condition or alternative tool is named, leaving it short of explicit routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server