get_progressRetrieve today's progress toward a single goal: current total, target, and percent complete. Use it to check daily goal status in GoalTrack.
Today's total vs target for one goal, with % complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal_id | Yes |
| 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 but only partly delivers: it discloses that the result is scoped to today and consists of total vs target plus a percentage. It does not state that this is a read-only operation or describe any failure behavior for an invalid goal_id.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with scope and result content, with no filler. Nothing needs trimming.
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?
The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is measured and the time scope. However, ambiguity remains about what 'today' means relative to a timezone and what happens for a missing or unauthorized goal.
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 0% and the single goal_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'for one goal' implies the parameter selects a single goal, which is minimal but the right scoping cue; no format or validity 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 resource and scope: today's total vs target for a single goal, plus % complete. It is distinguishable from streak_status and history, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the contrast.
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?
No indication of when to use this over streak_status or history, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer the choice from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.