Retrieve a single-day Garmin Connect health summary covering steps, calories, resting heart rate, stress, Body Battery, intensity minutes, and SpO2.
Steps, calories, resting HR, stress, Body Battery, intensity minutes, SpO2 for one day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | YYYY-MM-DD; defaults to today | |
| raw | No | Return Garmin's full JSON instead of a summary |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds essentially nothing beyond a metric list. It does not say what happens when no data exists for the day, whether a missing day defaults to today (that is only in the schema), or how the aggregate relates to the per-metric tools.
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 terse fragment with zero wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: no verb, no usage framing, and no front-loaded statement of what the tool actually does.
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 and parameters are fully described, so return values and inputs need not be repeated. However, against a crowded sibling set of overlapping single-metric tools, the description omits the disambiguation an agent needs to pick this one 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters ('day' with YYYY-MM-DD default today, and 'raw' for full Garmin JSON) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the resource (a one-day aggregate) and enumerates the metrics it covers (steps, calories, resting HR, stress, Body Battery, intensity minutes, SpO2). This implicitly distinguishes it from the single-metric siblings like get_stress and get_body_battery, though it never states the aggregation explicitly or uses a verb.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the many single-metric siblings (get_body_battery, get_stress, get_heart_rate, get_sleep) that overlap its content. The agent must infer from the metric list that this is the one-call aggregate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.