Skip to main content
Glama
cambroussard9

trail-factors

ride_blocks

Retrieve stationary ride block structure with per-block heart rate summaries, provenance flags, and off-bike event warnings to interpret indoor cycling data accurately.

Instructions

§18 the stationary ride's blocks, each with its HR summary.

The watch records HEART RATE ONLY for these -- measured on the indoor
cycling activities in the corpus: no cadence, no speed, no position, no power,
and distance_m is a constant 0.0 rather than null. So resistance, RPM and
the block boundaries are ATHLETE-RECALLED, and `provenance` says so on
every payload. `machine_totals` is the console readout -- machine-reported,
a different reliability, and the machine is the only source for it.

A block containing an off-bike event (water bottle, restroom) is FLAGGED:
the clock keeps running, so the break lands inside a block and its HR is
recovery rather than work at that resistance.

An unannotated ride returns `unavailable` WITH A REASON, never an empty
list -- nothing logged is a different fact from a ride with no structure.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses HR-only recording, constant distance, athlete-recalled resistance/RPM/boundaries, provenance, machine_totals reliability, off-bike flagging, and unavailable-with-reason behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the resource and then uses short paragraphs for caveats; the length is justified by the data-quality disclosures. Minor verbosity but no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers the unusual data limitations and unavailable case well. The missing parameter semantics is the main gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter `run` has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description does not explain what run identifies or how to supply it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States it returns the stationary ride's blocks with HR summary, a specific resource and payload. It does not explicitly contrast with save_ride_blocks or resistance_history, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The unannotated-ride behavior is a return contract, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.