living_body_data_inventoryReview the composed body data inventory to discover available wellness connectors, privacy modes, and recommended first calls. Use it to orient integration without triggering live child calls.
Static inventory of composed domains, known connectors, privacy modes and recommended first calls. No live child calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these with 'Static inventory' and 'No live child calls', adding modest context about non-live behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds some value, but the annotations carry most of the burden.
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 sentence that front-loads key information (static inventory, contents) and ends with a clear no-live-calls qualifier. No extraneous words or redundant structures.
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 static inventory tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It lists included contents but does not specify the output structure or how the response_format parameter varies the response. This is a minor gap given the simplicity.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the response_format parameter. Although the parameter is simple and self-explanatory via its enum values, the description fails to explain its impact on output. Given the low coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.
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 clearly states the tool returns a 'static inventory' listing specific items (domains, connectors, privacy modes, recommended first calls) and explicitly distinguishes it from tools that make live calls. The verb 'inventory' combined with the contents list provides a precise, actionable purpose that differentiates from siblings like living_body_connection_status.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving static configuration data and warns against expecting live calls, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative sibling tools. The context from sibling names is available but not leveraged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.