Retrieve daily resting, minimum, and maximum heart rate from Garmin Connect, with an option to return the full intraday series for detailed analysis.
Resting, min and max heart rate for one day (raw=true for the intraday series).
| 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 agent knows this is a safe, external-data read. The description adds that raw=true yields the intraday series rather than just a fuller JSON blob, which is genuine context, but it says nothing about empty/missing days, timezone handling, or data availability.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the returned metrics and day scope, with the parameter nuance tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.
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, so the description needn't document return shape, and the tool's scope is narrow enough for a single sentence. The only real omissions are edge-case behavior (no data for the day, timezone of 'today'), which a careful agent would still want.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical still earns above baseline by explaining what raw=true actually produces behaviorally — the intraday series — rather than merely repeating the schema's 'full JSON instead of a summary' wording.
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 names a specific resource (heart rate) and enumerates the metrics returned — resting, min, max — scoped to a single day, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_hrv and get_stress. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for one day' plus the schema default of today tells the agent the scope, and the parenthetical hints that raw=true is the intraday path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for intraday vs summary queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.