Create an AI-written weekly productivity summary from daily logs by specifying start and end dates. Review accomplishments and progress for better planning.
Generate AI-written weekly productivity summary from daily logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | today |
| start_date | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | 7 days ago |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses only that the output is AI-written and derived from daily logs, saying nothing about whether the summary is persisted or ephemeral, generation cost/latency, rate limits, or what happens when no logs exist for the window.
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 with zero filler: the action and output type come first, the data source last. It is efficient, though its very terseness for an AI-generating tool borders on under-specification rather than optimal sizing.
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?
With no output schema, the description should describe the shape/format of the generated summary and whether it is stored, and it does not. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the definition is minimally viable but leaves real gaps for a generation 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%, with both start_date and end_date documented including format and defaults, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about date semantics (inclusive bounds, timezone, defaults), making the baseline 3 correct.
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 resource (weekly productivity summary), plus the data source (daily logs). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_daily_summary by scope (weekly vs daily), but the description never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether daily logs must already exist for the period), and no routing to related siblings like get_daily_summary or recommend_daily_tasks_ai. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.