Return step counts at 15-minute intervals for a given date to analyze activity patterns.
Get detailed steps data with 15-minute intervals
Note: This returns full interval data (~14KB). For a compact summary, use get_stats() which includes total_steps.
Args: date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
| 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?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the response is large (~14KB) and contains full interval data, which is useful for expectations and resource planning. It could also mention read-only or timezone handling, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a practical note about payload size and an alternative. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the data granularity, payload size, and a sibling alternative. Since an output schema exists, return structure is already available, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
The only parameter `date` has zero description coverage in the schema, but the description compensates fully by specifying the exact YYYY-MM-DD format. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs to call the tool correctly.
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 clearly states the tool returns detailed steps data at 15-minute intervals, which is a specific verb, resource, and granularity. It also distinguishes this tool from the compact get_stats alternative.
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 explicitly tells agents to use get_stats() when a compact summary with total_steps is needed, providing a clear condition and alternative. This guides tool selection without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.