Fetch habit records, optionally filtering by active status. Returns each habit's name, goal, current streak, and priority.
List all habits, optionally filtered by active status. Returns name, goal, streak info, and priority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Filter by active status (true = active only, false = inactive only, omit = all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a listing operation with an optional filter and specifies the return fields, which is helpful. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple read-only list tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the optional filter, and lists the return fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, the filter behavior, and what fields are returned. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without additional information.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including the meaning of true, false, and omit. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'habits', the optional filter on active status, and the returned fields. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_habit, update_habit, and get_habit_analytics, which have different purposes.
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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to list habits, optionally filtered by active status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_habit_analytics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.