Get a daily nutrition breakdown for any date, showing calories, carbs, fat, protein, sodium, and sugar compared to goals. Use it to assess intake and stay on track.
Get a nutrition summary for a specific date, including calories, carbs, fat, protein, sodium, and sugar with their goals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today if not provided. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and the description states what data is returned. It does not discuss edge cases like missing data for a date, but for a simple retrieval tool this is reasonable.
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 one focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the relevant output fields. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential output fields and a clear call pattern. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the default-date behavior, which the schema already covers.
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 coverage is 100%, with the date parameter already documented as YYYY-MM-DD and defaulting to today. The description merely restates the notion of a specific date and adds no new parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.
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 specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('nutrition summary for a specific date'), and enumerates the returned fields (calories, carbs, fat, protein, sodium, sugar with goals). This is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like get_diary or get_goals, even without naming 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?
The phrase 'for a specific date' implies when the tool is appropriate, and the nutrient list implies a daily-summary use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as get_diary or get_goals, and no alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.