Ask GorillaDesk (gorilladesk-mcp)

how_is_business_doing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pulls jobs and invoiced or collected amounts for a date window (default 30 days) to answer 'How's business?'

Instructions

Answer: "How's business?", "Give me a snapshot"

Jobs + invoiced/collected for a date window (default 30 days).

Tool call template

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": "how_is_business_doing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds that it returns jobs plus invoiced/collected over a date window. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or how the aggregation is computed. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, front-loads the user-facing trigger phrases, and then specifies the data scope. The 'Answer:' prefix and quotes are slightly awkward but add no real waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has optional parameters, and an output schema exists, but the description leaves ambiguity about start/end date semantics and how the default window is applied. It is adequate for a basic snapshot tool but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description only says 'date window (default 30 days),' which partially covers the `days` parameter. It does not explain how `start_date` and `end_date` interact with `days`, their format, or precedence, leaving most parameters under-documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as answering 'How's business?' and providing a snapshot of 'Jobs + invoiced/collected for a date window,' which names a specific resource and scope. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like how_much_money or who_owes_me_money, but the intent is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit trigger phrases ('How's business?', 'Give me a snapshot') and states the default date window (30 days), giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.