Retrieve running tolerance metrics for a chosen date range, aggregated daily or weekly (default: weekly), to monitor changes in running load tolerance.
defaults aggregation="weekly"; restricted to {daily,weekly} (narrower than the FTP/lactate methods)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enddate | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| startdate | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| aggregation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default value aggregation="weekly", which is genuinely useful behavioral context not present in the schema. However, it says nothing about what data is returned, date-range limits, or any other operational 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?
The description is a single semicolon-separated fragment with no sentence structure and no front-loaded purpose. It is certainly concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized: it omits the tool's function entirely, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.
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 data-retrieval tool with no output schema and a domain-specific concept ('running tolerance'), the description should explain what is returned and when to use it. Instead it only documents one parameter's default, leaving the core purpose, return values, and usage context unspecified.
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 67% (startdate and enddate are documented; aggregation is not). The description partially compensates by stating the default (weekly) and allowed set for aggregation, which adds meaning beyond the schema's enum. It does not explain how daily vs. weekly aggregation differ in output, but this is adequate for the one undocumented parameter.
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; it only specifies the aggregation default and allowed values. The name 'get_running_tolerance' implies a retrieval of a running metric, and the aside about FTP/lactate methods hints at the domain, but the description itself provides no purpose statement an agent could use to select this tool.
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 explicit alternative identified. The mention that aggregation is 'narrower than the FTP/lactate methods' implies a relationship to siblings like get_lactate_threshold or get_functional_threshold_power_range, but it does not say when this tool should be chosen over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.