Retrieve your daily stress metrics from Garmin Connect, including average, maximum, and time spent in each stress zone, to monitor recovery and training load.
All-day stress: average, max and time spent in each stress band.
| 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?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds some behavioral context by indicating the all-day scope and the summarization (average/max/band time), but it does not disclose potential null responses, date-range behavior, or data availability caveats.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core scope and output shape efficiently, though it is slightly terse and could have used the saved space to clarify the date parameter.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. The main missing piece is parameter semantics around date, and there is no mention of units or edge cases; still, the output schema likely covers return structure.
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 one undocumented parameter (date) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention the date parameter at all. The agent is left to guess the expected date format, whether the default null means 'today', and how date filtering behaves.
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 identifies the resource (all-day stress data) and the specific metrics returned (average, max, time in stress bands). It distinguishes itself from sibling metrics like garmin_heart_rate and garmin_hrv by naming stress specifically, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to overlapping tools like garmin_daily_summary or garmin_briefing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.