show_my_trood_dataRetrieves your analytics answer and recently sent events from a local log so you can see what Trood knows about your usage.
The analytics answer and the last events sent from this computer, from a local log. Use it when the person asks what Trood knows about their usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data comes from a local log, signaling the answer is machine-local and may not reflect server-side state. It does not say how many events are returned, which is a minor gap for a no-param 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 sentences, zero waste, with the returned content front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
For a zero-parameter read with a closed-world annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the provenance of the data. It could go slightly further on volume or form of the 'last events' (how many, what fields), but the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly are present.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object at 100% coverage; no parameter semantics are needed.
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?
States specifically what it returns — the analytics answer and the last events sent from this computer, sourced from a local log — which is a concrete verb+resource rather than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like set_trood_analytics or get_user_activity, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
Gives a clear invocation trigger: use it when the person asks what Trood knows about their usage. That is an explicit when-to-use rule, but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives (e.g. get_user_activity), so the agent must infer routing on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.