Record a workout manually with details like type, start time, duration, distance, and calories to add it to your Apple Health data.
录入一次运动(source=manual)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kcal | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| distance_km | No | ||
| duration_min | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose required permissions, deduplication behavior, validation rules, what happens with partial data, or what the call returns – all relevant for a write/logging tool.
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 short sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing – nothing an agent needs to call the tool is covered.
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?
For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate: required fields, units, and expected behavior are all unstated.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description names none of them (kind, start, kcal, note, distance_km, duration_min). 'source=manual' is not even a parameter in the schema, so it adds no actionable parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('录入一次运动' = log a workout), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling log_meal and from the read/report tools. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings explicitly or state scope (single entry vs batch).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. log_meal for food). The only qualifier, 'source=manual', describes provenance but not a selection condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.