garminconnect-js

get_rhr_daily

Read-only

Fetch daily resting heart rate for a start and end date, returning calendarDate/value rows without nulls. Use it to analyze RHR trends.

Instructions

Resting heart rate per day over a date range, as { calendarDate, value } rows. Reshapes allMetrics.metricsMap into [{calendarDate, value}], dropping null values.

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "get_rhr_daily"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that null values are dropped, which tells the agent that no-data days are absent from the array rather than present as nulls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the return shape following. Size is well matched to a simple two-parameter read tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by specifying the row shape `{ calendarDate, value }` and the null-dropping behavior. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., no note on extremely long ranges or empty results), which are low-stakes for this tool.

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% and both parameters are documented with format and UTC semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about start/end beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+granularity: 'Resting heart rate per day over a date range'. The range-versus-single-day phrasing implicitly differentiates it from the sibling get_rhr_day, but it never names that sibling, so the routing is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. The most likely confusion, this tool vs. get_rhr_day (single day vs. range), is left unresolved for the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server