garmin_get_stressRetrieve daily Garmin stress scores and time spent in high, medium, low, and rest stress for a date range; defaults to the last 7 days.
Daily overall stress level (0-100) and seconds spent in high, medium, low, and rest stress.
start, end: YYYY-MM-DD inclusive (default: the 7 days ending today). Any length works; long ranges are fetched 28 days at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuine behavior not covered there: a 7-day default window and the fact that long ranges are fetched 28 days at a time. It stops short of noting rate limits or what happens for days with no stress data.
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?
Two short blocks, front-loaded with the returned data before parameter guidance; no filler sentences. Minor loss for the multi-line wrapping that makes the unit list slightly harder to scan.
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 does the necessary work of naming the returned fields and units, and it documents both optional parameters. A note on empty/missing days or the response shape per day would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: both start and end are given a format (YYYY-MM-DD), an inclusivity note, and a default. The chunked 28-day fetching behavior for long ranges is extra useful context beyond the bare schema.
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 and the exact payload: 'Daily overall stress level (0-100) and seconds spent in high, medium, low, and rest stress.' That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like garmin_get_body_battery or garmin_get_hrv, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
Usage is only implied by the returned content and the default window ('the 7 days ending today'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over garmin_get_daily_summary or garmin_get_body_battery, and no preconditions such as data availability or device requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.