heartbeatsRaw heartbeats for a date. Requires your own WakaTime personal OAuth token as _apiKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| _apiKey | No | Your WakaTime personal OAuth access token (Bearer). Required for account data (current user, summaries, durations, heartbeats, goals, projects, commits); optional for public profiles and stats. | |
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / _apiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your WakaTime personal OAuth access token (Bearer). Required for account data (current user, summaries, durations, heartbeats, goals, projects, commits); optional for public profiles and stats.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the auth requirement (personal OAuth token), which is real context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about result granularity, rate limits, or who the token must belong to.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the auth constraint. No filler, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than wasting space.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage, an ambiguous user_id, and several adjacent WakaTime siblings, the description leaves too much unstated for an agent to call it confidently.
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 only 33%: _apiKey is documented in the schema, but user_id and date have no descriptions. The description mentions the token (duplicating the schema) and 'for a date' hints at date semantics, but it never clarifies whose user_id is expected or the date format.
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+resource ('Raw heartbeats for a date') that identifies the data being retrieved, distinct from siblings like durations or summaries. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 only guidance is the auth requirement ('Requires your own WakaTime personal OAuth token as _apiKey'). There is no statement of when to call this vs. durations, summaries, or commits, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.