Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
everlog-mcp

everlog-mcp

by jlconlin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_journals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists journals with entry counts, first and last dates, and hidden status while excluding trashed entries, so you can reuse journal names with the journal filter in other tools.

Instructions

List all journals with entry_count, first_date, last_date (YYYY-MM-DD) and a hidden flag. Trashed entries are excluded. Use the names with the journal filter of other tools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_journals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: trashed entries are excluded from the listing and a hidden flag is surfaced, which affects how an agent should interpret the results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The return shape is front-loaded and the exclusion rule and follow-up usage follow immediately, so the agent gets everything in one pass.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure, and it still names the key fields and the trashed-entry exclusion. For a zero-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry; this meets the baseline of 4. Schema coverage is 100% regardless, leaving nothing ambiguous about the call signature.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List all journals') and immediately names the exact payload fields: entry_count, first_date, last_date, and hidden. It is clearly a lightweight enumeration tool, distinguishable from content tools like get_entry or search_entries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives actionable downstream guidance: 'Use the names with the `journal` filter of other tools,' which tells the agent to call this first to discover valid journal names. It does not state explicit exclusions or contrast against a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools