Log water intake for a specific date by adding a glass of water (default 250 ml). Specify date and optional amount to track daily hydration in Trackfusion.
Add a glass of water for a specific date (default 250ml)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountMl | No | Amount in ml (default 250) | |
| dateString | Yes | Date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates a mutating action and a default volume of 250ml, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose whether the amount is appended to existing intake or replaces it, nor any other side effects or response behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, the date scope, and the default amount efficiently.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate for calling it correctly. However, it misses an opportunity to distinguish itself from set_water_intake and does not explain whether calling it adds to or overwrites existing water intake.
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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (dateString and amountMl), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds the 'glass' framing and default 250ml, but this mostly duplicates what the schema's amountMl description already states.
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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a glass of water') with a date scope, making the operation immediately clear. It also differentiates from siblings like get_water_intake and set_water_intake by signaling an incremental add rather than a read or a set operation.
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 this is for logging water consumption on a given day, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related set_water_intake sibling. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.