Retrieves sleep details for a specified night from Garmin Connect, showing sleep stages, score, and overnight vitals. Use it to review past sleep quality and metrics.
Sleep for the night ending on the given date: stages, score and overnight vitals.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the date semantics (the date is the morning the sleep period ends, not the night it starts) and enumerating the returned content. It does not disclose behavior for missing data or the null-date default, but nothing contradicts the annotations.
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?
A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the resource and packs in the key semantic nuance (night ending on the given date) plus the return contents. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema (which relieves the description of explaining return values), this is mostly adequate. The remaining gaps are the unexplained raw parameter and the behavior when date is null (default). Given the large sibling family, a note on how sleep differs from daily_summary would improve completeness.
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 parameter-meaning burden. It partially does: 'night ending on the given date' gives semantic meaning to the date parameter. However, the raw boolean parameter is entirely unexplained — an agent cannot know what raw=true changes about the response — and the null-date default behavior is unaddressed.
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 states a specific resource (sleep) and what it returns (stages, score, overnight vitals), which distinguishes it from the sibling health-metric tools like heart_rate, hrv, and stress. The verb is implied ('get'/'retrieve') rather than explicit, but the resource and return content are clear enough for an agent to identify what this tool does.
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 phrase 'night ending on the given date' conveys when the tool is appropriate: when an agent needs sleep data for a specific night. However, there is no explicit routing guidance against alternatives such as garmin_daily_summary, which may also expose sleep information, and no mention of when to prefer this over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.