Retrieve journal entries from locally synced Fitbit Air data by date range, defaulting to the last 7 days, or specify recent days ending at a chosen date.
Journal entries in a date range (default 7 days). Or pass days=N for the last N days ending at end (default today); not with start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| start | No |
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 useful behavioral defaults (7-day window, end defaults to today, exclusivity with start) but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or empty-range behavior, so it stays at an adequate level.
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 with no filler, and the default behavior is front-loaded before the alternative mode. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('not with start'), which costs a little clarity but keeps it tight.
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 3-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameter interaction model but leaves the date-string format and the returned entry fields unspecified. It is complete enough to attempt a call, but not to call confidently on the first try.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does explain the roles of days, end, and start plus their default/exclusion logic. It never states the accepted date format for start/end, which is the most critical missing detail given the null-schema parameters.
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 ('Journal entries') and the scope (a date range, defaulting to 7 days), so an agent can tell it reads journal data rather than writing it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like log_journal or get_coach_notes, but the resource noun is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.
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?
It gives real usage rules for the parameters — default 7 days, or days=N ending at end (default today), and 'not with start' marking a mutual exclusion. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling read tools, so usage context is only partially covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.