Retrieve a night's sleep summary from Garmin Connect, including duration, stages, score, HRV, SpO2, and respiration, for a specified date or today.
Sleep for the night ending on day: duration, stages, score, HRV, SpO2, respiration.
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns sleep summary metrics and implies a daily night-ending scope, but it does not disclose missing-data behavior, permissions, rate limits, or the raw flag's effect.
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 wasted words. It states the resource, scope, and key returned fields immediately.
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, annotations cover safety, and the input schema fully documents both parameters, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the tool's purpose and scope well, though it omits the `raw` option and any sibling-tool routing that could help an agent choose 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 description coverage is 100%, with both `day` and `raw` fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the `day` semantics as 'night ending on day' but does not mention `raw`, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 and scope: sleep for the night ending on `day`, and enumerates returned metrics such as duration, stages, score, HRV, SpO2, and respiration. This distinguishes it as a sleep-data tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_hrv or get_heart_rate.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or related-tool routing. The only implied usage is that it returns sleep data for a given day, which is evident from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.