Fetch Garmin Connect max metrics data for a date range. It validates start and end dates and throws GarminError if start is after end.
throws GarminError if start > end
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| start | 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 state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a concrete runtime behavior, GarminError when start > end, which is useful, but it does not cover return shape or auth/rate limits.
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 an extremely short one-sentence fragment with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with purpose and reads as an addendum rather than a usable description.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain what a max metrics range contains or what a successful call returns. Annotations only cover safety; the core data contract is absent.
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 documents both date parameters. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint (start must not exceed end), which is meaningful but limited; baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.
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 retrieves; it only documents a validation error. The name implies a range getter, but the text gives no verb+resource purpose.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus get_max_metrics or other range-based siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.