Retrieve detailed workout metrics, including heart rate, zone minutes, TRIMP, strain, calories, and recovery, from your personal database over a specified number of days.
Per-workout metrics: HR avg/max, zone minutes, TRIMP, strain, HR-derived kcal, 1-min HR recovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists output field names. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, aggregation behavior, or whether workouts must be synced first (a sync sibling 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?
It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, so length is fine. However, it is under-specified rather than concise, and the informational content is not front-loaded around the tool's purpose.
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 need not be re-explained, but the description omits the temporal scope that the 'days' parameter implies, making the tool's operating context incomplete. For a parameterized retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, key context is missing.
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 0% and the description never mentions the sole 'days' parameter, its default of 30, or how the lookback window affects results. The field list adds no meaning about the input, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.
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 names the resource (workout metrics) and enumerates the returned fields, but contains no verb and reads as a fragment rather than stating what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_daily or get_heart_rate, which also return health metrics.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the default 30-day window, and no routing vs alternatives such as get_daily or get_heart_rate. The agent gets no signal about the conditions under which this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.