Fetch alarm settings from all connected Garmin devices to view wake-up times and alerts in one place.
no HTTP path of its own: calls getDevices() once, then getDeviceSettings(device.deviceId) once per device (N+1 fan-out, sequential by design; do not parallelize), concatenating each device's alarms; a device with no alarms contributes nothing, never throws for that case
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds genuine behavioral detail: an N+1 fan-out via getDevices plus per-device getDeviceSettings, sequential invocation, empty-device handling, and the never-throws guarantee. The empty-case behavior in particular is useful disclosure beyond the annotations.
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 sentence with no padding, but it is a dense run-on packed with backticked internals, and it front-loads the least informative clause. The fan-out/parallelization detail is arguably server-side noise rather than information the caller needs.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is arguably complete on behavior. However, it never describes the shape of the returned alarms or when this tool is the right choice, leaving gaps relative to the breadth of the sibling set.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 conveys that alarms are gathered from all devices ('concatenating each device's alarms'), so the resource is inferable, but the opening sentence leads with an implementation note ('no HTTP path of its own') rather than stating the purpose. It reads as internal mechanics rather than a crisp 'returns alarms across all devices' statement.
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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_devices, get_device_settings, or get_device_last_used. The only directive ('do not parallelize') is an implementation constraint for the server, not a selection guideline for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.