Delx Living Body

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Living Body — Daily Brief

living_body_daily_brief

Read-only

Aggregates daily summaries from connected wellness devices into a single briefing. Requires explicit user confirmation before running.

Instructions

Synthetic daily briefing aggregating each detected connector's daily summary/context. Spawns child MCP processes — requires explicit_user_intent: true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sources`	No
`privacy_mode`	No
`response_format`	No		markdown
`explicit_user_intent`	Yes	Required confirmation that the caller is acting on explicit user intent. living_body_ask spawns multiple wellness MCP subprocesses; agents must not call it speculatively.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`highlights`	Yes
`generated_at`	Yes
`sources_used`	Yes
`data_snapshot`	Yes
`brief_markdown`	Yes
`sources_failed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.7Aug 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / explicit_user_intent

Added value: +{
+  "const": true,
+  "description": "Required confirmation that the caller is acting on explicit user intent. living_body_ask spawns multiple wellness MCP subprocesses; agents must not call it speculatively.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "explicit_user_intent"
+]

First observedv0.3.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool spawns child MCP processes and requires explicit user intent, which is useful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and the safety profile is already covered by readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the process/safety caveat about spawning child processes and requiring explicit intent is placed immediately after.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered. However, for a tool that spawns subprocesses and has four parameters with only 25% schema coverage, the description leaves out important context: default sources, behavior across privacy modes, how child processes are handled, and when to use this instead of related tools. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented sources, privacy_mode, and response_format parameters. The phrase 'each detected connector' gives some hint about sources, but the description does not explain how sources are selected, what privacy_mode levels mean, or how response_format affects the output. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool produces a synthetic daily briefing by aggregating each detected connector's daily summary/context. This identifies the action (aggregate/synthesize) and the resource (daily briefings from health connectors), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like living_body_ask or living_body_compose_context.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides an important precondition: it spawns child MCP processes and requires explicit_user_intent: true. This implies the caller must have explicit user intent and should not call it speculatively, but it does not clearly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as living_body_ask or living_body_compose_context.

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

Deploy Server