get_goalsRetrieve user goals filtered by status (active, achieved, abandoned, revised, or all) to track progress and guide coaching decisions.
The user's goals (status: active|achieved|abandoned|revised|all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | active |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the valid status values (active, achieved, abandoned, revised, all) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether it returns a list. With the output schema presumably documenting return structure, this is adequate for a simple read tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the resource ('user's goals') and immediately provides the critical parameter options. There is no waste; every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose and the parameter's valid values.
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 read tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspect (status values). It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but given the readOnlyHint and the schema, nothing else seems necessary. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about returning a collection, which is likely clear from the output schema.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'status' parameter. It explicitly lists the allowed values (active|achieved|abandoned|revised|all), which is essential for correct invocation. It does not explain the meaning of each value, but the values are self-explanatory and the default 'active' is in the schema.
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 clearly identifies the resource as 'the user's goals' and lists the status filter options. It distinguishes from sibling write tool 'upsert_goal' by implying a read operation, and the title 'Get goals' reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', leaving the action slightly implied.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the read-only nature and sibling 'upsert_goal' make it obvious for reading goals, there is no mention of when to use it over other getters or any conditions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.