Fetch weekly intensity-minute totals between two Garmin Connect dates to monitor training effort over time.
Weekly intensity-minute totals between two dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| start | 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 only the date-range scope and does not disclose the return format, how weekly aggregation is defined, timezone handling, or whether results are grouped by week. This is minimal added behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the scope and resource without unnecessary elaboration.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it should describe the return value (e.g., weekly totals grouped by week) or how weeks are defined, which it does not.
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%, fully documenting the start and end date parameters with format details. The description implies date-range filtering but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb implicitly ('totals') and resource ('weekly intensity-minute'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_intensity_minutes_data, leaving an agent to guess which one provides weekly aggregates versus other intensity data.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_intensity_minutes_data or get_weekly_steps. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the implied retrieval of weekly totals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.