Retrieve your resting heart rate for a specific calendar date (YYYY-MM-DD) from Garmin Connect. Use it to track daily recovery and fitness trends over time.
Resting heart rate 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on missing data, timezone handling, or how a single day's value is derived.
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, well sized for a one-parameter read tool. It is compact to the point of being terse, but nothing is padded.
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 tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. The notable gap is the lack of any differentiation from the get_rhr_daily sibling, which an agent would need to select correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, with cdate fully documented as a YYYY-MM-DD UTC calendar date. The description's 'one date' phrasing adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific resource (resting heart rate) and a clear scope (one date), so an agent knows what it returns. However, it provides no differentiation from the near-identical sibling get_rhr_daily, so it fails the sibling-distinction bar for a 5.
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 mention of alternatives, despite the presence of the closely named get_rhr_daily sibling. The agent is left to guess which of the two to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.