Record a child's weight in kilograms using their ID and measurement date to track growth progress.
Record a weight measurement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Measurement date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| notes | No | Optional notes | |
| weight | Yes | Weight in kilograms | |
| child_id | Yes | ID of the child. Use list_children to get IDs. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates persistence through 'Record' but says nothing about side effects, duplicate handling, permissions, or any special measurement rules that an agent should know before invoking this write operation.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It may be terse, but it is appropriately sized for a simple create operation given the rich input schema.
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 CRUD create, the description plus fully documented schema and output schema is minimally viable: the agent knows the action, resource, and inputs. It falls short of complete because there is no usage guidance or behavioral context around the write operation, though output schema covers the return contract.
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 documents all 4 parameters with descriptions, including units for weight and the YYYY-MM-DD format for date, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable under the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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 clear action verb ('Record') and names the specific resource ('weight measurement'), so an agent can tell what this tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from measurements_create_height or measurements_create_bmi, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 guidance about when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as measurements_update_weight or measurements_list_weight. The verb 'Record' implies adding a new measurement, but no exclusions or sibling-routing information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.