Track daily feelings, energy, soreness, session RPE, illness, alcohol units, and notes locally to monitor health trends and recovery.
Log how the user feels: feeling/energy 1-5, soreness/session_rpe 0-10, illness, alcohol units 0-50, notes. Local only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| energy | No | ||
| feeling | No | ||
| illness | No | ||
| soreness | No | ||
| session_rpe | No | ||
| alcohol_units | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=false already tells the agent this is a write, and the description is consistent with that. 'Local only' adds genuine behavioral context (data is not synced remotely), but there is no mention of what happens on a repeat call for the same date, permission needs, or validation behavior.
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?
A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and the field/range pairs, with 'Local only' as a short trailing clarifier. No wasted words and nothing buried.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint, the description covers most fields with value ranges and flags local storage. The remaining gap is the date parameter's semantics (default behavior, one entry per day?) and conflict/overwrite behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it supplies ranges for feeling/energy (1-5), soreness/session_rpe (0-10), and alcohol units (0-50) and names illness and notes. Only 'date' is left undocumented 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?
States a specific verb ('Log') plus the resource and enumerates the subjective fields being captured, so the agent knows exactly what the tool writes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_journal, though the write-vs-read contrast in the verb makes the split inferable.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and the field list ('Log how the user feels'), but the description never says when to reach for this versus get_journal, nor whether a journal entry already exists for a date. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.