io.github.rwestergren/cronometer-api-mcp

get_daily_nutrition

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get consumed macro and micronutrient totals for one or more calendar days by specifying a date or day count, returning daily summaries and nutrient details.

Instructions

Get consumed macro and micronutrient totals for one or more days.

Use days=N for calories/nutrients over the last N calendar days. Prefer relative inputs over dates calculated from conversation history.

Returns the amounts actually consumed for the day, covering every nutrient the user tracks in Cronometer (i.e. has a target set for). The response has:

summary: flat macro totals (energy, protein, carbs, net_carbs, fat, fiber, alcohol). A value is null if that macro isn't tracked.
nutrients: the full list of tracked nutrients, each with id, name, amount, unit, category, and confidence.

A nutrient only appears if it's tracked in Cronometer. To surface e.g. saturated fat, cholesterol, or trans fat, set a target for it in Cronometer and it will flow through automatically.

Args: date: Inclusive end date: YYYY-MM-DD, today, yesterday, or N days ago. Defaults to today in the account timezone, resolved at call time. days: Number of calendar days, 1–31 (default 1). Includes the end date; days=3 includes today, date='yesterday', days=3 excludes today.

One day returns date, summary, and nutrients. Multiple days return start_date, end_date, and a days list of those objects, oldest first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`days`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.4Sep 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / days

Added value: +{
+  "default": 1,
+  "maximum": 31,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Days",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains that nutrients only appear if tracked in Cronometer, that values are null if a macro isn't tracked, that defaults resolve at call time in the account timezone, and that multiple days return a list of day objects. These are behavioral details not derivable from the schema or annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured with clear sections for the response shape and arguments. The 'Args' section is neatly separated, and examples are given inline. There is no fluff or repetition; it is dense yet scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with an output schema (present but not detailed here), the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: input formats, defaults, behavior for multiple days, the tracked-nutrient caveat, and the exact response structure. It even notes how to surface additional nutrients (set a target). No essential information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains both parameters: date (format, examples, defaults, resolution timezone) and days (range, inclusive behavior, and how days=3 with a date excludes today). This goes far beyond the schema's default values and titles, giving the agent precise semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Get consumed macro and micronutrient totals for one or more days.' It names the specific output (summary and nutrients) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_food_log (which returns per-entry logs) and get_nutrition_scores (which likely returns scores). The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on parameter usage ('Prefer relative inputs over dates calculated from conversation history') and explains how days and date interact. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_food_log or get_nutrition_scores. It implies its scope (daily totals) but never names a sibling or gives an exclusion condition. Thus it falls short of a 5 but is well above vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.