Retrieve the full dashboard data, including precomputed signals and trips, to review every rendered metric before writing an accurate health story or analysis.
Everything the dashboard renders, including precomputed signals and trips. Read this before writing the story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the payload is precomputed (`signals`, `trips`), signaling derived values that may lag the underlying data. It does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, nor does it warn about payload size or latency for an aggregate endpoint.
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?
Two compact sentences with the payload scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing instruction is slightly cryptic – "the story" is never defined in the tool surface – which costs it a point.
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?
This is a zero-argument aggregate endpoint with no output schema, so the return shape is invisible until invocation; the description hints at two keys (`signals`, `trips`) but not the rest of the structure. Reasonably adequate for a simple no-param call, but thin given the absent output contract.
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?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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 identifies the resource precisely as the aggregate of everything the dashboard renders, which implicitly distinguishes it from piecemeal siblings like `overview`, `trips`, and `monthly_trends`. It lacks an explicit verb ("returns"), and it does not address the naming collision where `trips` is both a sibling tool and a field inside this payload.
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?
"Read this before writing the story" gives an implied sequencing hint – call this first when composing narrative output. However, it never states alternatives or when NOT to use it, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this supersedes `overview` / `monthly_trends` or merely wraps them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.