Retrieve EGYM strength measurements for a chosen number of days, optionally filtered by activity ID, to track progress and review training results.
EGYM strength measurements over days days, optionally for one activityId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| activity_id | No |
| 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 are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data scope and optional activity filter, but does not disclose authentication needs, pagination, default behavior, units, or what happens when `activity_id` is omitted.
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 redundant wording. It communicates the resource, time window, and optional filter efficiently.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions for either parameter, the definition is still thin on behavioral context and parameter semantics for an agent to call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does add meaning by indicating `days` is a lookback window and `activity_id` is an optional single-activity filter, but it omits the default of 180 days, what null means, and how activity IDs should be obtained.
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 names a specific resource, EGYM strength measurements, and scopes it to a `days` lookback with an optional activity filter. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic workout tools, but it does not explicitly separate itself from sibling tools such as `get_strength_status` or `get_recent_workouts`.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this historical strength tool rather than `get_strength_status`, `get_recent_workouts`, or `get_workouts`. The history framing implies usage, but alternatives and exclusions are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.