Skip to main content
Glama
B3r3z

Intervals.icu MCP Server

by B3r3z

get_activity_data_quality

Assess an activity's data quality by summarizing stream samples and metadata, identifying gaps, missing arrays, and unit inconsistencies for reliable analysis.

Instructions

Summarize all returned stream samples and activity metadata using GETs only.

Finite fractions use source sample count, not elapsed time. Time gaps are relative to a 1-second reference and do not prove dropped sensor data. Optional secondary arrays, missing primary arrays, zero and null are distinct. Multiple time streams are reported as an ambiguous axis, without choosing the first. Source unit conflicts and inferred display hints are separate. Metadata and stream failures are independent. No sensor-source, physiological or readiness inference is made, and only 20 gap examples are returned. Conditional Tymewear documentation is in provenance.respiratory_interpretation: VT/VE use relative device volume units, BR uses breaths/min. Finite raw VT values such as 186 are not invalid merely because they are not in liters. No volume conversion or VE=VT*BR consistency check is performed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
activity_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
errorNo
queryNo
sourceYes
statusYes
coverageYes
warningsNo
paginationNo
request_idNo
schema_versionNo1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It states GET-only access, sample-count vs elapsed-time semantics, null/zero distinctions, ambiguous time axes, independence of metadata and stream failures, the 20-example cap, and respiratory unit caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and every later sentence carries a specific behavioral fact. The block is dense, but it lacks sectioning or bullet formatting, making it heavier than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description provides the missing interpretive context: sampling semantics, limitations, unit conventions, and inference boundaries. It is complete for a read-only summarization tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation for the two parameters. The names activity_id and api_key are somewhat self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap or clarify how they should be supplied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence identifies a specific verb and resource ('Summarize all returned stream samples and activity metadata') and 'GETs only' signals read-only. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as get_activity_streams or get_activity_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description is largely a list of behavioral caveats rather than usage guidance. It never states when an agent should choose this tool over sibling tools, nor does it describe circumstances that make the tool appropriate or inappropriate to call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.