Retrieve body weight entries between two dates from Garmin Connect to track progress over a chosen period.
Weigh-ins between two dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enddate | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| startdate | 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the date-range scoping, which is already implied by the required startdate/enddate params; it discloses nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination.
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. It is arguably too terse, but nothing in it is redundant or 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 two-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It leaves open what the return payload looks like and how many records come back for a wide date range, but the annotations and schema cover the essentials.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD UTC). The description adds no format or boundary detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States the resource (weigh-ins) and scope (between two dates), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the close sibling get_daily_weigh_ins or get_body_composition, and the fragment lacks a verb to make the action unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_daily_weigh_ins, get_body_composition, or the range-based alternatives. The agent must infer the date-range condition from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.