Check which health data types (e.g., steps, heart rate, sleep) are available for syncing from the Chinese Mi Fitness cloud.
Get data coverage
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_data_coverage"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_types | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, data sources, or return behavior. The agent is left completely in the dark about what happens when this tool is invoked.
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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information, so brevity is not a virtue here; the description does not earn its place as a meaningful explanation.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal parameter schema, the description is the only source of context. It is severely incomplete, failing to explain what 'data coverage' returns, what data_types control, and how this relates to sibling tools.
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 parameter, data_types, which is an array of strings. However, the description provides zero explanation of what 'data types' means in this context, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 'Get data coverage' simply restates the tool name without elaborating on what data coverage is or what it pertains to. No specific verb or resource beyond the name itself is provided, making it tautological and unhelpful.
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 offers no context about when to use this tool compared to alternatives like sync_data, get_sync_status, or query_* tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.