Fetch moderate and vigorous intensity minutes for a specific date to track daily activity and progress toward weekly goals.
Moderate and vigorous intensity minutes for one date.
| 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 nothing behavioral beyond that: no return format, no data availability caveats, no timezone handling for the UTC date.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is terse but conveys purpose, scope, and data type efficiently; only the lack of any sibling routing keeps it from a 5.
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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. However, it omits the distinction from get_weekly_intensity_minutes and gives no hint about the returned data shape, which is the main gap given no output schema exists.
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 100% and the single cdate parameter is fully documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD, UTC), so the description need not compensate. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('intensity minutes') and scopes it to one date, and 'moderate and vigorous' clarifies what data is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_weekly_intensity_minutes, though 'for one date' implies the daily-vs-weekly split.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The daily/weekly distinction from get_weekly_intensity_minutes must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'for one date'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.