Retrieve food logs for a set number of days, including meals, glycemic data, wellbeing and nutrients; optionally filter by breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack or drink.
Food log over N days: meals (gi/gl/wellbeing) + nutrients per meal. Optional meal_type filter (breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack/drink).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| meal_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 that results include gi/gl/wellbeing plus nutrients per meal, which is useful content context, but says nothing about ordering, limits, or pagination behavior for the N-day window.
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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. Minor drag from unexpanded abbreviations (gi/gl) that force the agent to guess, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the read-only profile. The remaining gaps are the lack of differentiation from query_nutrition/nutrition_report and the undefined 'days' semantics, which leave an agent in a crowded sibling set with real ambiguity.
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 carry parameter meaning. It does supply the valid meal_type values (breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack/drink), which the schema lacks as an enum, but it gives no gloss for 'days' beyond the phrase 'over N days' and no default hint.
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 a concrete resource and scope: a food log over N days with meals and per-meal nutrients. That is more specific than the bare name, but it never distinguishes this tool from near-identical siblings such as query_nutrition and nutrition_report, so an agent cannot route confidently among them.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many food/nutrition siblings (query_nutrition, nutrition_report, log_meal, list_meal_templates). The only usage-like detail is that the meal_type filter is optional, which is a parameter fact rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.