get_nutritionRetrieve a day's food log with nutrition goals, calories and nutrients consumed, plus a per-meal breakdown for a chosen date, today or yesterday.
Food log for one day: nutrition goals, calories and nutrients consumed, and per-meal breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD, or 'today' / 'yesterday' (resolved in the user's Garmin time zone). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context, but does not disclose missing-data behavior, units, rate limits, or other operational details beyond annotations.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the scope and summarizes the returned data without waste. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.
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 simple one-day read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the description is largely complete because it states the returned categories. A minor gap is that it does not mention behavior when no nutrition data exists for the date.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single date parameter is fully documented with format and timezone resolution. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names the resource (food log/nutrition) and scope (one day), and lists the returned content categories (goals, calories/nutrients, per-meal breakdown). It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and sibling differentiation, but no sibling is nutrition-focused, so the purpose is clear.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description as a daily nutrition lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.