Retrieve a locally stored activity summary by its ID, including summary fields but excluding GPS or sample streams.
Full stored summary row for one activity by id (from list_activities).
Summary fields only - no GPS or sample streams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only summary fields are returned, not GPS or sample streams, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not cover other traits like idempotency or rate limits.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading key information (what it does and what it excludes). No filler words, making it efficient for an AI agent.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and a behavioral caveat (no GPS/samples), but lacks details on the return structure or any other context needed for complete understanding.
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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter activity_id. It only mentions 'by id', and with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., how to obtain the ID, expected range) would be beneficial.
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 states the tool retrieves a full stored summary row for one activity by ID, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_activities by specifying 'by id' and noting it excludes GPS/sample streams. It is specific and informative.
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 implies the activity ID comes from list_activities, giving usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. More explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.