Get app usage data for a given date, with hourly breakdown and human-readable names. Filter by minimum usage duration.
Get app usage data for a specific date. Returns per-app usage grouped by hour with human-readable app names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today. | |
| min_seconds | No | Minimum usage duration in seconds to include. Default: 60 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but there is no output schema. It does disclose the return contract ('per-app usage grouped by hour with human-readable app names'), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, data availability/latency, or behavior when no usage exists.
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 short sentences with zero filler: what it does first, what it returns second. Both sentences earn their place.
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?
With no output schema, describing the return shape was necessary and it is done. Both optional params are schema-documented. The only real omission is disambiguation from the sibling tool and any note on empty/error cases.
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 100%, and both parameters (date format/default, min_seconds default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Get app usage data') scoped to 'a specific date', and even specifies the return shape. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling screentime_sql, but the contrast is strongly implied by the sibling's name.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions screentime_sql as an alternative for raw/custom queries. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the pre-aggregated simple path and the sibling is the flexible one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.