Generate an end-of-day summary of team commits, tasks, activity, and concerns. Provide a date to review what everyone worked on today.
Generate an end-of-day summary of what everyone on the team did today — commits, tasks, activity, and concerns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the aggregated content (commits, tasks, activity, concerns), but does not state that it is a read-only/non-destructive operation, whether it requires special permissions to view team activity, or how the summary is generated or returned.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and content categories with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not clarify the return format or scope boundaries against sibling tools. It gives enough for an agent to know what the tool produces but not enough to confidently choose it over team_overview or get_activity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single optional date parameter, so the schema already documents its format and default. The description does not add any additional meaning about the date parameter beyond implicitly referring to 'today', so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Generate) and a specific resource (end-of-day summary of team activity), and lists the content categories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like team_overview or get_activity, but the composite 'end-of-day summary' scope is clear enough to separate it from simple activity query tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The 'end-of-day' phrasing implies a temporal context, but the description never says to prefer this over team_overview, get_activity, or list_tasks, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.