Fetch Garmin Connect hill score data for one date or a date range; date ranges return daily scores.
TWO branches by presence of enddate, same shape as getEnduranceScore but the range branch hard-codes aggregation="daily" (NOT "weekly"; do not conflate the two)
| 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, lowering the bar. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the range branch hard-codes aggregation="daily". That is a useful disclosure, but it is expressed as a reference to an undescribed sibling rather than self-containedly.
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 dense sentence with no filler, so it is compact and front-loads the branching rule. But the density comes partly from cryptic references to unstated tools and an unexplained `aggregation` field, which reduces rather than improves information value.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does not. It relies on the agent already knowing `getEnduranceScore`'s shape and the `aggregation` concept, leaving an agent unable to predict the response for either branch.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning by explaining that the presence of `enddate` changes behavior into two branches, which the schema alone does not convey, but it omits the semantic consequence of that branch beyond the aggregation constant.
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 never states what the tool produces: it only describes the branching behavior of `enddate` and points to `getEnduranceScore` for shape. An agent must infer the purpose (returning a hill score) purely from the name, so it fails to state a verb+resource.
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 when each branch applies ('TWO branches by presence of enddate') and warns against conflating this with the weekly aggregation used elsewhere. However it names no alternative tool or condition for choosing between this and `get_endurance_score`, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.