Skip to main content
Glama
cambroussard9

trail-factors

zone_by_gait

Splits heart-rate zone time by gait—running, walking, standing—using each activity’s own boundaries, so zone-2 minutes are reported per run or local ISO week without mixing gait types.

Instructions

M7 time in HR zone split by GAIT — running vs walking vs standing.

Zone-2 minutes are the headline, per run and rolled up per LOCAL ISO week.

WHY THE SPLIT MATTERS: a pooled zone-2 total mixes a walk up a climb
with running on the flat, and those are different training. On a hilly
run/walk session the walking share of zone 2 can exceed the running share
— invisible in the pooled figure, and the whole point of the run/walk
structure.

Boundaries come from EACH ACTIVITY'S OWN FILE where present (§14e); a
corpus spanning zone changes holds several distinct sets, and
`boundary_set` says which ruler a
run was measured with, and a week spanning two is reported as SPLIT rather
than summed into a number that is on no scale.

Do not compare this against Garmin's hrTimeInZone: ours excludes stops and
flagged records and applies the 40 s HR lag, so it reads lower by design.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
last_nNo
clusterNo
end_dateNo
run_typeNo
directionNo
segment_idNo
start_dateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that boundaries come from each activity's own file, that weeks spanning multiple boundary sets are reported as SPLIT rather than summed, that stops and flagged records are excluded, and that a 40s HR lag is applied. These are non-obvious traits that materially affect interpretation.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, but the description is long and includes motivational context ('why the split matters') that could be trimmed. It is structured but not tight; several sentences explain interpretation rather than invocation.

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?

For a tool with seven undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete on the input side. It provides excellent behavioral and interpretive context, and the output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter semantics leave a critical gap for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters (last_n, cluster, end_date, run_type, direction, segment_id, start_date). An agent has no way to know what values to supply or how they affect the result.

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 verb and resource: time in HR zone split by gait (running vs walking vs standing). This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from a simple zone-total tool, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

The description explains why the gait split matters but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like basic_metrics or time_above_hr. The only comparison is to Garmin's external metric, not to sibling tools in this server.

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