Retrieve daily notes for a specific date by providing a YYYY-MM-DD value. Access the corresponding day entry to review or manage your Trackfusion daily log.
Get the day entry (daily notes) for a specific date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dateString | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval for a single date, but it does not disclose what happens when no day entry exists, what fields are returned, or any non-obvious side effects. Basic transparency is present, but richer behavioral context is missing.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the date scope. This is appropriately sized and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation. The description identifies the resource and date well, but does not describe the return shape, absence behavior, or when this tool is the right choice among many similar date-based getters. It is adequate for a basic retrieval but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, dateString, is already fully documented with its YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'specific date', so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('day entry' / 'daily notes'), and the key parameter (specific date). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate it from date-scoped sibling getters such as get_diet_daily_summary or get_water_intake.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. With many sibling tools that retrieve date-specific data, an agent receives no basis for selecting get_day_entry over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.