Retrieve all Garmin daily events for a specific date to review activity, health, and device changes in one timeline.
Daily events for one date (Garmin's dailyEvents feed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cdate | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by tying the tool to Garmin's underlying `dailyEvents` feed, which helps an agent reason about the payload shape, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or how far the feed reaches.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint ('one date') is front-loaded. Nothing in the text is redundant with the title or annotations.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a reader could learn what a 'daily event' actually contains, and it does not say. For a minimal single-parameter read tool the rest is adequate, but the return semantics remain opaque.
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?
Only one parameter (cdate), and schema description coverage is 100% with a clear YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) note, so the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about the date parameter beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3.
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 ('daily events') and narrows it to a single date, which is more specific than a bare tautology. However it contains no verb at all and does nothing to separate it from siblings like get_calendar_event, list_calendar_events, or get_body_battery_events, so an agent must infer that this returns a read feed.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives are given. The reader cannot tell from the text whether this overlaps with get_calendar_event or get_daily_stats, or under what circumstances the raw 'dailyEvents' feed is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.