get_eod_summaryRetrieves today's end-of-day summary, presenting a narrative draft of commits grouped by ticket for standup or daily reports. Uses a template, no LLM needed.
Returns today's EOD narrative draft — a summary of the day's commits grouped by ticket, suitable for a standup or daily report. Template-based (no LLM required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is template-based and requires no LLM, which gives extra insight into its deterministic behavior without contradicting the annotations.
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 concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose and key characteristics without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (EOD narrative draft) and its intended use. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool has no parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details since none exist, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool returns today's EOD narrative draft, a summary of commits grouped by ticket. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource, and the 'no LLM required' note differentiates it from potentially similar generation tools.
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 a context ('suitable for a standup or daily report') but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_today_commits or get_active_context. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement, so guidance is implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.