Retrieve habit check-in records for specified habits and date ranges in web mode, or fetch all check-ins when using API-token mode. Use it to review habit completion history.
Queries habit check-in records. Web mode takes { habitIds, from, to }; API-token mode takes no args.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (web mode) | |
| from | No | Start date (web mode) | |
| habitIds | No | Habit ids (web mode) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"Start date, e.g. \"2026-01-01\""New value: +"Start date (web mode)"Input schema / properties / habitIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Habit ids"New value: +"Habit ids (web mode)"Input schema / properties / to / descriptionPrevious value: -"End date, e.g. \"2026-12-31\""New value: +"End date (web mode)"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "habitIds",
- "from",
- "to"
-]v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — a dual-mode interface where the API-token path ignores all parameters — but says nothing about auth requirements, result limits, ordering, or pagination for a query 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, front-loaded with purpose, then the mode/argument mapping. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more: return shape, ordering, and any result limits are unstated. For a three-optional-parameter read tool it is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries its own '(web mode)' description, so the description adds little beyond restating the grouping. Baseline 3 applies; no further syntax or format detail is added.
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 and resource ('Queries habit check-in records') and adds a mode distinction. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but no other sibling covers check-ins, so differentiation isn't a real hazard here.
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?
It signals that behavior depends on mode (web vs API-token) and which argument set each mode expects, which is genuine usage context. However it never says when to prefer this tool over list_habits or any other read tool, and it gives no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.