Fetch daily logs within a date range to track daily work and progress. Specify start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format.
List daily logs within a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| start_date | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
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 behavioral burden and does not disclose return volume, ordering, pagination, or that both date parameters are optional (so an unbounded call is possible). Only the read-only nature is weakly implied by 'List'.
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 sentence with no padding and the scope qualifier front-loaded after the verb-resource pair. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave real questions unanswered.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, the essentials are present. The gaps are behavioral (unbounded/default behavior, result size, ordering) rather than structural, so it is adequate but not 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% and both parameters already document their YYYY-MM-DD format, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about date semantics, inclusivity of bounds, or defaults.
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 ('List') and resource ('daily logs') plus the scoping dimension (date range), which distinguishes it from the singular get_daily_log sibling. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with that sibling or with any nearby list tool.
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?
'Within a date range' implies the context of use, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_daily_log or other list siblings, nor what happens when the range is omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.