Set daily calorie and macronutrient targets to guide nutrition tracking. Specify calories, protein, carbs, and fat in grams to match your dietary plan.
Set daily nutrition goals (calories and macro targets)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fatGrams | Yes | Daily fat target in grams | |
| carbsGrams | Yes | Daily carbs target in grams | |
| proteinGrams | Yes | Daily protein target in grams | |
| dailyCalories | Yes | Daily calorie target |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether setting goals overwrites existing goals, whether values must be positive, or what the response looks like. 'Set' implies replacement but that is not explicitly disclosed.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.
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 and the schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention update semantics, validation constraints, or what happens after the goals are set, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description only groups them as 'calories and macro targets' and adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Set') and resource ('daily nutrition goals'), and clarifies the scope with 'calories and macro targets'. It clearly distinguishes this from the read-only sibling get_nutrition_goals.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_nutrition_goals or set_diet_profile. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the verb and name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.