garmin_heart_rateFetch daily heart rate data from Garmin Connect, providing min, max, and resting values, plus optional 2-minute raw series for detailed analysis.
Heart rate for a day. Summary gives min/max/resting; raw adds the 2-minute series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | ||
| date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by explaining that summary returns min/max/resting and raw adds the 2-minute series. Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld hints, so the safety profile is complete. No edge cases, availability caveats, or rate-limit issues are mentioned, but these are less critical given the read-only nature.
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 sentences with no filler or redundancy. The core information—day scope, summary mode, and raw mode—is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 read-only, single-day metric with an output schema, the description covers the essential facets: time scope, data granularity, and mode toggle. It omits date formatting and default behavior, but these are minor given the minimal parameter count. Overall it provides enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 compensate. It clarifies the 'raw' boolean by defining what it adds, and it implies 'date' through 'for a day.' However, it does not specify the expected date format or the behavior of the null default, leaving some ambiguity.
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 clearly as 'heart rate for a day' and distinguishes between summary and raw output. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List,' which slightly weakens the action clarity. The topic is clearly distinct from sibling Garmin metric tools.
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?
Provides context for a single day and explains the two modes (summary vs raw), which helps select between them. Does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools, though the metric's specificity makes the choice fairly unambiguous. No exclusionary guidance or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.