Retrieve recorded body measurements such as bodyweight, body fat, and waist with dates, ordered oldest first, to review body composition trends.
Recorded body measurements (bodyweight, body fat, waist, ...) with dates, oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the result set is ordered oldest first and includes dates alongside values, which matters for how an agent interprets the output. It says nothing about pagination or result size limits, keeping it below a 5.
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?
A single well-formed sentence: resource first, representative fields in parentheses, then the ordering guarantee. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description supplies the two things the schema cannot: what the resource is and the ordering of results. A brief note on volume or whether all history is returned would round it out, but nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full retrieval rather than hinting at options that don't exist.
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 a specific resource (recorded body measurements) and enumerates representative fields (bodyweight, body fat, waist), so an agent can tell it apart from get_progress or get_exercise_history on subject matter. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.
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 only implied: the wording ('Recorded ... with dates') signals a read of historical measurement records, but there is no statement of when to pick this over get_progress or get_exercise_history, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.