Retrieve rolled-up healthspan scores across all domains for a client, optionally as of a specific date, to summarize overall health status at a glance.
Cross-domain rolled-up healthspan scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | ||
| as_of_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Get' implies read-only retrieval and 'rolled-up' hints at aggregation, but there is no mention of permissions, whether a client_id is required, how as_of_date affects results, or freshness/rate-limit behavior.
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?
It is a single fragment rather than a sentence, and while short, it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded action and no supporting detail, so brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficiency.
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 return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage the description is too thin. A consumer cannot tell whether this is a read-only aggregate, what client_id must be, or how as_of_date scopes the result.
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% across two parameters (client_id, as_of_date), and the description adds no meaning for either. It does not say what client_id refers to, whether as_of_date defaults to today, or what date format is expected, leaving both parameters fully undocumented.
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 fragment 'Cross-domain rolled-up healthspan scores' names the resource and its aggregate scope, which does distinguish it from per-domain siblings like get_sleep_data and get_cognitive_data. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the action (retrieve/read) is only inferred from the tool name. Purpose is understandable but not stated as a clear verb+resource.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_lifestyle_summary, get_trends, or the domain-specific getters. The only implicit signal is 'cross-domain', which hints at aggregation, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative choices are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.