Retrieve a summary of app usage from the local macOS archive. Apply optional filters for time range, app, browser, profile, and more to narrow results.
App usage summary; bounded read-only archive retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| app_id | No | ||
| browser | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| fidelity | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| provenance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the word 'bounded,' which suggests a limit on results but does not explain pagination, rate limits, or output format. This is minimal added value beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.
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 short sentence, which is front-loaded but severely under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is not effectively concise because it omits critical information, making it inadequate rather than concise.
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's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the summary contains, how filters behave, or what the response looks like, leaving the agent with no guidance for correct invocation.
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% – the schema provides no descriptions for any of the 9 parameters (start, end, limit, app_id, browser, profile, fidelity, source_id, provenance). The description also fails to explain any of these parameters, offering no semantic meaning to guide the agent.
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 states 'App usage summary; bounded read-only archive retrieval,' which gives a verb (retrieval) and resource (app usage summary) but lacks specificity about what constitutes the summary or how it differs from similar siblings like domain_summary or query. It is not a tautology but remains vague.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and the read-only annotation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.