Retrieve endurance score from Garmin Connect for a single day or weekly aggregated period using start date and optional end date.
TWO branches by presence of enddate: no enddate hits the single-day endpoint; with enddate hits .../stats with hard-coded aggregation="weekly"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enddate | No | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| startdate | 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: the request silently switches endpoints based on `enddate` and the range mode hard-codes `aggregation="weekly"`, which materially affects what data comes back.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the cryptic path fragment (`.../stats`) and implementation jargon reduce its utility for an agent. Terse to the point of being hard to parse.
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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, yet it says nothing about what the endurance score looks like or how single-day vs. weekly results differ. For a data-retrieval tool it leaves the agent guessing about the payload.
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 100% (both dates documented as YYYY-MM-DD UTC), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that the presence of `enddate` is a behavioral switch, not just another filter.
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 clarifies the tool's two operating modes (single-day vs. range/weekly) but never states what an endurance score is or what the tool actually returns. The purpose must be inferred from the tool name, and the text reads as HTTP routing detail rather than a purpose 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?
It implies usage via the branch condition: omit `enddate` for the single-day endpoint, include it for the `.../stats` weekly endpoint. This is actionable but framed as endpoint mechanics rather than user intent, and it names no alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling score/stats tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.