Retrieve menstrual cycle calendar data from Garmin Connect for a given date range, returning cycle and period logs to help track reproductive health over time.
Garmin rejects windows of 92+ inclusive days; not enforced here (caller's responsibility)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enddate | Yes | 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 establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: Garmin's API rejects 92+ inclusive-day windows and this wrapper does not enforce that, making it the caller's responsibility. This is a non-obvious, actionable pitfall worth flagging. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or partial-window behavior.
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 short and waste-free, but the single sentence is spent on an edge-case caveat rather than front-loading what the tool returns. Concision here reads as under-specification rather than discipline.
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-only range query with no output schema, the description should at least say what data comes back (cycle/day entries across the range) and how this differs from its menstrual siblings. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers inputs, but the core purpose gap leaves the definition incomplete.
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?
Both parameters (startdate, enddate) are fully documented in the schema with YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) format at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, boundary, or semantics beyond the schema, though the 92-day rule implicitly bounds the range.
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 does — no verb, no resource, no scope. The only content is a constraint caveat, so an agent must infer the purpose entirely from the name and from sibling names like get_menstrual_data_for_date. That is closer to missing purpose than to a clear 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_menstrual_cycle_summary, get_menstrual_reports, or get_menstrual_data_for_date, all of which cover overlapping menstrual data. The window-size caveat is a constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.