garminconnect-js

get_lifestyle_logging_data

Read-only

Retrieve daily lifestyle logging entries for a specific date to track and review personal habits and routines.

Instructions

Lifestyle logging entries for one date. GETs /lifestylelogging-service/dailyLog/{cdate} Grouped under misc per the plan's explicit instruction, even though it superficially resembles a wellness-daily endpoint.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cdate": "<cdate>"
    },
    "name": "get_lifestyle_logging_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cdate`	Yes	Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint path, but says nothing about what 'lifestyle logging' actually contains or the shape of the returned data, so it only marginally exceeds 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and stated efficiently, but the second sentence about being 'Grouped under misc per the plan's explicit instruction' is leaked internal planning context that adds no value for an agent and dilutes the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one fully documented parameter, read-only/open-world annotations, and no output schema, the basics are covered. But for a data-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description never characterizes the returned entries, leaving a real gap in what an agent should expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single cdate parameter, so the schema already documents format (YYYY-MM-DD UTC) and required status. The description's '{cdate}' reference in the URL adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a clear verb+resource ('Lifestyle logging entries for one date'), which distinguishes it from the many other daily-log endpoints like get_menstrual_daily_log or get_nutrition_daily_food_log. However, the second sentence is internal meta-commentary about categorization and does not help an agent select the tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite dozens of sibling daily-retrieval tools. The date-scoped usage is only implied by 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.

Deploy Server