Retrieve daily steps, active minutes, sedentary hours, weight, workouts, and weigh-ins for the last 7 days by default; pass days or start/end dates for a custom range.
Daily steps, brisk minutes, Google zone minutes, sedentary hours, strength, weight; workouts and weigh-ins. Default 7 days. Or pass days=N for the last N days ending at end (default today); not with start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the default 7-day window, that 'end' defaults to today, and that days cannot be combined with start. It says nothing about pagination, volume, or resolution of the returned data, so it is helpful but not rich.
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?
Front-loaded with the returned data, then the windowing rules, in about three compact lines with no filler. The metric list is dense but every item is informative; structure is slightly terse rather than 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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety hints, the description covers the data domain, the default window, and the parameter interactions. The missing date format for start/end is the one thing an agent would still have to guess at.
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 carry the load, and it largely does: it defines the default window (7 days), the semantics of days=N (last N days ending at end), the default for end (today), and the mutual exclusion with start. The only gap is the expected format of the start/end strings, which is left unspecified.
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?
Names the specific resource set it returns (steps, brisk/zone minutes, sedentary hours, strength, weight, workouts, weigh-ins), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_sleep, get_running and get_journal without opening the schema. It lacks an explicit verb and never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from content rather than stated.
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 gives real guidance on how to call it ('Default 7 days', 'Or pass days=N ... not with start'), but that is intra-parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance. It never says when to prefer this over get_overview, get_trends, or get_sleep, so the agent must infer the choice from the returned metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.