Get your overnight heart rate variability (HRV) data, including last night's average, baseline, and status, from Garmin Connect. Specify a date to retrieve historical HRV measurements and monitor your recovery trends.
Overnight heart rate variability: last-night average, baseline and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
The description adds context about the data returned (overnight average, baseline, status) beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. However, it does not explain the role of the date parameter, potential variability in results, or any constraints. Since the annotations already declare safety and open-world behavior, the description's contribution is minimal but not contradictory.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one optional parameter and simple output.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description covers the primary purpose. However, it omits any explanation of the date parameter and lacks usage differentiation. These gaps make the description incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional clues.
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 schema has a single optional 'date' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving agents without any idea of what the date parameter controls, what format it expects, or how omitting it changes the result. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
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's subject (overnight heart rate variability) and what it returns (last-night average, baseline, and status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_heart_rate or garmin_stress, which focus on different metrics. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and description alone, which may be sufficient for a human but is insufficient for an AI to make reliable routing decisions among many similar health-metric tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.