Retrieve daily step counts as time intervals for a specified date; returns [] when no step data exists.
Step counts for one date, as a series of time intervals; [] if there are none.
| 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, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior: the empty-result case returns `[]`. Beyond that it says nothing about units, granularity length, or data availability, which is a modest addition over the structured fields.
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 that delivers resource, scope, return shape, and edge case with zero filler. Nothing to trim.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so (interval series, empty array case). For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is nearly complete; missing unit/granularity details keep it short of a 5.
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 there is a single required `cdate` parameter documented as YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). The description adds no format or range detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific resource (step counts) with an explicit scope (one date) and return shape (series of time intervals). The 'series of time intervals' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like get_daily_steps and get_weekly_steps, but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears. The 'one date' scope and intraday interval return imply the use case (per-date granular step data) but the agent must infer the tradeoff against get_daily_steps or get_weekly_steps on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.