Retrieve the content of your daily note to review current entries and tasks.
Read today's daily note content.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "daily_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal 'Read', such as what occurs if no daily note exists (error vs. creation), so it barely adds value beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence that clearly states the action and object. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly expanded (e.g., on date determination) without losing conciseness.
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 tool with no parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not address what happens if today's daily note does not exist, which is a key edge case. Given that siblings include daily_create, an agent might need to know whether daily_read will create the note or error.
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 input schema has no parameters, so the description needs to add no parameter semantics. Baseline is 4 since schema coverage is 100% and no parameters exist.
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 specifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'today's daily note content', clearly indicating what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like daily_append and create_note. However, it lacks explicit distinction from read_note, which could read the same content if the filename is known.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_note or daily_create. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.