trail-factors

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

time_above_hr

Calculates time at or above each configured heart-rate threshold per run and across the corpus, showing whether high-intensity exposure is repeated or isolated.

Instructions

Time at or above each rung of the configured HR ladder (time_above_ladder_bpm in config/athlete.yaml), per run and corpus-wide. thresholds_bpm in the result lists the rungs used.

THE QUESTION THE EXCURSION LIST CANNOT ANSWER: is the top of the range a
place this athlete has been REPEATEDLY, or twice? One run contributing six
excursions and six runs contributing one each look identical at the top of
a list sorted by peak.

Timer-time weighting, capped per record: time at a heart rate is a DOSE,
not a rate, so stopped time is not subtracted — the heart does not stop at
a road crossing. Totals are also reported without the run whose provenance
is open (§14e-bis).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`last_n`	No
`cluster`	No
`end_date`	No
`run_type`	No
`direction`	No
`segment_id`	No
`start_date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses timer-time weighting, that stopped time is deliberately not subtracted (with a rationale), that time is capped per record, and that corpus totals omit a run with open provenance. What it omits is the practical profile: read-only nature, pagination/size limits, and failure modes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core computation is front-loaded, but the block on timer-time weighting is discursive and the '§14e-bis' provenance reference is internal jargon an agent cannot resolve. Roughly a third of the text is rationale rather than operational instruction.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the metric's methodology is well covered. But for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving every filter and scope parameter undefined is a significant gap that the description should have closed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Seven optional parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — `cluster`, `direction`, `segment_id`, and `run_type` are completely opaque as to accepted values and effect. The only identifier mentioned, `thresholds_bpm`, is a result field, not an input. Names like `last_n` and `start_date` are inferable, which keeps this above a 1.

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 a specific computation: time at or above each rung of the configured HR ladder, reported per run and corpus-wide, with the rungs exposed via `thresholds_bpm`. It even frames the analytical question it answers (repeated exposure at the top of the range vs. a one-off). It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (`hr_above`, `max_hr_over`), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'THE QUESTION THE EXCURSION LIST CANNOT ANSWER' framing implies when this tool is the right choice, but it never names the alternative tool or states a selection rule. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' and no prerequisites for calling it.

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