get_morning_brief_by_dateRetrieve the signed-in user's morning brief for any local calendar date, consolidating meetings, tasks, and prep details into a single read-only summary.
Read the signed-in user's Zero morning brief for one local calendar date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about user scoping and local-date semantics, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens when no brief exists for the date or what the response contains.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb, resource, user scope, and date scope, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies what is read, whose data is read, and for which date. It could be slightly more complete by describing the return value or handling of missing briefs, but these are minor gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'local calendar date' adds important semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'date' format and pattern, clearly indicating the local_date parameter's role and timezone-sensitive nature.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('the signed-in user's Zero morning brief') and a precise scope ('one local calendar date'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like search_zero, get_transcript, or get_meeting_prep, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.
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?
The phrase 'for one local calendar date' gives a clear condition for when to call this tool: when a specific dated brief is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.