Retrieve a user's current biological age and its muscle, metabolism, cardio, and flexibility components, including flexibility measurements, from their EGYM Fitness account.
Current bio age with its parts (muscle, metabolism, cardio, flexibility), including flexibility measurements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose what the response contains (bio age plus its component sub-scores, including flexibility measurements), which is real behavioral value. It says nothing about permissions, freshness of the underlying data, or whether missing components can occur, leaving moderate gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 no filler, and the return-value summary leads. The trailing 'including flexibility measurements' is mildly redundant with the parenthetical list but not wasteful.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't document return values or arguments, and it still sketches the response components. It is nearly complete; only the relationship to get_bio_age_history is left implicit.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; however the description adds no parameter-related meaning because there is nothing to parameterize. It is slightly reduced only because the enumeration of parts reads as response shape rather than input semantics.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Current bio age') and enumerates the returned components (muscle, metabolism, cardio, flexibility), which distinguishes it from get_bio_age_history. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the current-vs-historical split.
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 word 'Current' implies this is the snapshot tool versus the historical one, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named. Usage is only implied by the scope word.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.