Skip to main content
Glama

get_day_log

Fetch your study log for a specific date, including study and rest durations, and subject breakdown.

Instructions

Return your study log for the given date.

:param date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. ``"2026-09-12"``.
:type date: str
:returns: Mapping with ``date``, ``study_ms``/``study_hours``,
    ``rest_ms``/``rest_hours``, ``max_study_ms``/``max_study_hours``,
    ``added_ms``/``added_hours`` and a ``subjects`` list of
    ``{subject_id, subject_title, study_ms, study_hours}``.
:rtype: dict[str, Any]
:raises RuntimeError: If YPT credentials are not configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses an authentication precondition via "Raises RuntimeError: If YPT credentials are not configured" and that the operation is a read ("Return"). It does not mention rate limits, permissions beyond credentials, or behavior for missing dates, but the auth disclosure is real value.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded before the docstring blocks, and the return-value enumeration is informative rather than padded. The Sphinx-style :param:/:type:/:rtype: boilerplate is slightly verbose for a one-parameter tool but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the date format, the auth failure mode, and the result shape, which is enough for correct invocation. Since an output schema exists, the return-value prose is redundant, and there is no guidance on how the tool relates to sibling reads.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, fully documenting the sole parameter with the exact format (YYYY-MM-DD) and a concrete example. Nothing more is needed for a single required string parameter.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Return your study log") scoped to a specific date, which is unambiguous. It is naturally distinct from the read-only siblings (get_profile, get_leaderboard, get_my_groups), though it never explicitly states that differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other read tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is the required date argument, which the schema already enforces.

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