get_routinesRetrieve recurring weekday routines and insert them into each matching day's plan so all devices and agents share the same checklist.
Routines: small steps that repeat on fixed weekdays, e.g. "talk with one person on Reddit". The server adds them to each matching day's plan, so every device and agent sees the same checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context — routines are auto-added by the server to each matching weekday's plan and shared across devices/agents — but says nothing about what the read returns or its shape.
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, front-loaded with definition before the behavior note, no filler. The quirkiness of the example is harmless but slightly informal for a tool description.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly sufficient — but it never tells the agent what a call actually yields, which is the one thing a 'get' tool should clarify.
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?
Zero parameters, so per the calibration baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 defines what a routine is and notes server-side effects, but never states the retrieval action — that the tool returns the routine list. The verb is only inferrable from the name, and the sibling set_routines is not mentioned, so an agent gets concept, not purpose.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over set_routines or how it relates to get_plan/get_now. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.