List journal entries filtered by start and end dates to review tasks and updates within a specific period.
List journal entries, optionally filtered by date range
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default: 50) |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List journal entries, optionally filtered by date range' without mentioning ordering, pagination, the default limit, read-only nature, or date-boundary semantics. This adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.
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 with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated 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?
The schema covers parameter definitions well, and the core operation is clear. However, with no annotations and no output schema, behavioral details like sorting, pagination, and what fields are returned are left unspecified, which makes the description adequate rather than 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'date range' framing for from/to but provides no additional meaning for the limit parameter or any important formatting details beyond what the schema already documents.
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 ('List') and resource ('journal entries'), and notes the optional date-range scope. It is clear at a glance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_journal_todos or get_day_entry.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_day_entry or list_journal_todos. There are no exclusions, conditions, or references to sibling tools, so the agent receives no routing help beyond the obvious reading intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.