intervals-icu-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but search_activities and search_activities_full are near-duplicates differing only in response detail. Similarly, get_calendar_events and get_upcoming_workouts overlap somewhat, though descriptions mitigate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_activity_details, create_event, delete_gear). Minor singular/plural deviations like get_workout_library vs get_workouts_in_folder do not undermine predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 48 tools, the surface far exceeds the typical 3-15 range. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., histograms, search variants, bulk operations), making the set feel bloated and overwhelming for agents.
Completeness3/5
Core activity and calendar management are well covered, but there are notable gaps: no activity upload, no delete for gear reminders, no single-gear retrieval, and no workout creation/editing. Some CRUD cycles are incomplete.
Average 4/5 across 48 of 48 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a JSON string with a list of metrics, which is useful, but it does not disclose how `days_back` is interpreted (e.g., inclusive of today, timezone), any error conditions, or whether the operation has side effects. This is a significant gap for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a list of metrics, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete but lacks context about its relationship to `get_wellness_for_date` and provides only a vague return type of 'JSON string' without describing the structure. There is no example or clarification on the range semantics, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes `days_back` with a default value and description. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves wellness data for recent days and lists the specific metrics included (HRV, sleep, resting heart rate, mood, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `get_wellness_for_date`, though the phrase 'recent days' implies a range rather than a single date.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_wellness_for_date` or `get_fitness_summary`. It simply describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a partial update via optional parameters but does not explicitly state that only provided fields are updated, what happens if sport_id is nonexistent, or any permission/error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise and well-structured, but includes an Args block that duplicates the schema's parameter documentation, making it slightly redundant. Still, it is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description omits important context: partial vs. full update semantics, error cases, and when to use this over sibling sport-settings tools. The return value is only vaguely described as 'Updated sport settings'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all five parameters, including units and examples. The description's Args section merely repeats this information, adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update' with the specific resource 'sport-specific settings' and lists the key fields (FTP, FTHR, pace thresholds). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools for activities, events, and gear.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_sport_settings, create_sport_settings, or get_sport_settings. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and specifies the return format as a JSON string, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free or describe error conditions (e.g., missing authentication), which would be valuable given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but has minor redundancy: the first sentence mentions the profile contents, and the second 'Returns' line repeats 'athlete profile data' instead of adding new detail. It could be tightened into one efficient sentence without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and return content, and an output schema likely exists as stated. However, it does not explain how this tool relates to overlapping siblings like get_fitness_summary and get_sport_settings, leaving a gap in contextual completeness that could confuse an agent choosing between tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the content of the profile (personal details, sport settings, fitness metrics), which helps set expectations even though no parameter explanations are needed.
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?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (athlete profile), scoped to the authenticated athlete, with a list of included data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_fitness_summary or get_sport_settings, which have overlapping return fields.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer when to choose it over sibling tools that provide fitness metrics or sport settings individually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the deleted resource but does not state that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or whether it affects related data (e.g., activities using those settings). The return value 'Deletion confirmation' is vague and does not clarify success/failure semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args and Returns sections are useful, though the Args section is redundant given the schema. No unnecessary text is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it deletes and what it returns. However, it lacks safety warnings about destructive consequences, and the output schema is not referenced. Given the absence of annotations, the description is minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the sport_id parameter thoroughly. The description's Args section merely repeats the schema without adding extra context about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage nuances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('sport-specific settings'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_activity or delete_gear.
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 description implies that this tool is used when you need to remove sport settings, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as update_sport_settings or apply_sport_settings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return value; it does not explain whether optional nulls mean 'no change' or 'clear value', nor does it mention error handling or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and logically organized with an opening sentence, parameter list, and return statement. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall, it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the description is mostly complete for a simple update. However, it lacks critical behavioral context such as semantics of optional parameters (null vs omitted) and failure behavior, which reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their meaning. The description's Args list simply mirrors the schema without adding extra semantic detail, such as units or interplay between distance_alert and time_alert.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing gear maintenance reminder'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gear_reminder and update_gear. The scope is unambiguous.
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 description implies usage for modifying existing reminders but does not explicitly state when to use it over create_gear_reminder or update_gear. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references, though the word 'existing' hints at the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data for the authenticated athlete and returns a JSON string with activity summaries, but does not mention ordering, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds some context beyond the schema (e.g., max limit) but remains limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a clear summary, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return type. The lack of usage guidance slightly reduces completeness, but the tool is straightforward and the output schema handles return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the max value for limit (100) not present in the schema, and restates defaults, providing extra semantic value beyond the parameter descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets recent activities for the authenticated athlete, with a specific verb and resource. It indicates a summary of key metrics, which helps distinguish it from get_activity_details and similar tools, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_activities or get_activity_details. The description gives context (recent activities with summaries) but does not state exclusions or recommend other tools for different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type (deletion confirmation) but does not disclose irreversibility, partial failure behavior, permission requirements, or whether the operation is atomic. For a destructive bulk operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose and efficiency benefit are front-loaded, and the Args/Returns sections are clearly structured. Some redundancy exists with the schema, but overall it is concise and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, efficiency, and return type adequately. With an output schema present, return details are not critical. However, for a bulk delete tool, it lacks information about error handling, partial success, or validation of IDs, which would be expected for such a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it notes the IDs are integers, but the schema already provides an example. No extra syntax or format details are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it deletes multiple calendar events in a single operation. Distinguishes from the sibling delete_event by noting bulk/multiple events and efficiency, so purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly notes it is more efficient than deleting events one at a time, implying use for bulk deletions. However, it doesn't name the alternative tool (delete_event) or state when NOT to use it, so it's just short of explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates settings and returns them, but does not disclose potential side effects, whether existing settings are overwritten, permissions required, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a create/write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently formatted with separate Args and Returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it redundantly lists parameter details already present in the schema, which could be trimmed without losing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema (not shown). The description covers all parameter meanings but lacks behavioral context such as idempotency, existence checks, or return value details. Given the moderate complexity and existing schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and brief explanations from the schema, adding only the word 'optional' for non-required fields. It does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create new sport-specific settings.' The verb 'create' is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_sport_settings, delete_sport_settings, and get_sport_settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to create new settings), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where another tool (e.g., update_sport_settings) would be more appropriate. The existence of sibling tools is not referenced, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the primary behavior (adds an event) and return type, but does not mention potential side effects, validation rules, or failure modes. Adequate but minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is reasonable and each section (purpose, args, returns) is clearly separated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool, the description covers the core behavior, parameters, and return value. Given the schema fully describes parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough, though it could add guidance on when to use bulk_create_events instead.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema descriptions, adding no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new calendar event, listing specific event types (workout, note, race, goal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_event and delete_event by the action and resource.
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 description implies usage for creating a single event, but does not explicitly contrast with bulk_create_events or other alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type ('JSON string') and the included data categories, which is useful. However, it does not mention any edge cases, permissions, or side effects (though a GET implies none), leaving the agent to infer safety from the verb 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with separate sections for purpose, arguments, and return value. It is reasonably concise, though the Args and Returns sections duplicate schema information and the phrase 'comprehensive activity details' appears twice. Slight redundancy prevents a perfect score, but otherwise it is clean and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what data is included and the return format, leaving detailed field definitions to the output schema. Minor gaps include lack of guidance on obtaining the activity_id or access requirements, but these are secondary for a straightforward getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the schema already describing activity_id as 'Activity ID to fetch'. The description's Args section merely repeats this as 'The unique ID of the activity', adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 given high schema coverage, and this description confirms the baseline without enhancing it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get detailed information for a specific activity' with a specific verb and resource, and goes further to list content categories ('all metrics, weather, and performance data'). This distinguishes it from more granular sibling tools like get_activity_streams or get_activity_intervals, which target specific data types.
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 description implies this is the tool for full activity details, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_activity_streams or get_activity_intervals. It lacks both positive guidance (e.g., 'use when you need a comprehensive overview') and exclusions (e.g., 'for raw time-series data, use get_activity_streams'), so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the returned metrics and states the output is a JSON string, but it does not cover edge cases like missing data, invalid dates, or error handling. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening line, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded, though the Args/Returns content duplicates schema information, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the parameter format and return content. The lack of explicit comparison to sibling tools is a minor gap, but overall it covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the date parameter with format. The description repeats the format and adds 'ISO-8601', which is marginal added value. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 with full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves wellness data for a specific date, listing metric categories like sleep, HRV, and mood. The phrase 'for a specific date' distinguishes it from the sibling get_wellness_data, which likely covers broader date ranges.
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 description implies use for single-date queries via the name and phrasing, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_wellness_data or mention when not to use this tool. No explicit guidance is provided beyond the obvious scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Returns: Updated gear item details' and the action itself, but does not state whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, what happens if the gear_id is not found, or any required permissions. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise first sentence, then an Args block and Returns line. The Args list duplicates schema information but is clearly formatted and not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers the purpose and return type. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., not-found handling, partial updates) but is complete enough for a straightforward CRUD operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's Args block repeats these descriptions without adding deeper semantic context (e.g., partial update behavior, null semantics).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing gear item' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_gear and delete_gear by focusing on modification of existing items.
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 phrase 'existing gear item' implies use on already-created items, providing minimal guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over create_gear or delete_gear, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It adds useful context about input format ('JSON array') and return value ('JSON string with created events'), but omits critical bulk-operation behaviors such as atomicity, partial-failure handling, or batch size limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and well-organized with Args/Returns sections. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'JSON array', but overall every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and the one parameter is fully described, so core usage is adequately covered. However, for a bulk mutation tool, the lack of any information about error behavior, partial success, or rate limits leaves an important gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single 'events' parameter with a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'JSON array' and references create_event structure, but does not provide meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create multiple calendar events in a single operation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_event by emphasizing the batch aspect and referencing the single-event structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'This is more efficient than creating events one at a time', giving a clear comparative usage cue. It does not name the alternative tool or provide exclusions, but the context makes the batch vs. single distinction clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (JSON string) and the content categories (workouts, notes, races, goals), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. For a read-only get tool, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized with a summary sentence, Args list, and Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the structure matches the schema, making it easy to scan. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return value details are covered. The description explains the scope of the data (time period, content types) sufficiently for a simple read tool. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_upcoming_workouts, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (days_ahead, days_back) are already described in the schema. The description repeats the same information in the Args section, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('planned events and workouts from the calendar'), and clarifies the content includes workouts, notes, races, and goals. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_upcoming_workouts, which focus only on workouts, and from event CRUD tools.
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 description implies usage for retrieving calendar events over a time period, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_upcoming_workouts or get_event. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation and mentions the return format, but does not disclose potential error conditions, permission requirements, or behavior when no settings exist. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single clear sentence followed by a brief returns section. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter read tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys what the tool returns and the scope ('all sport-specific settings'). It does not over-explain, staying appropriately minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the content of the returned settings (FTP, FTHR, pace thresholds, zones), which provides context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'sport-specific settings', listing concrete examples like FTP, FTHR, pace thresholds, and zones. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that update, create, or delete settings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to update_sport_settings or apply_sport_settings, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing conversion behavior, the optional output_path side effect, and the return format (JSON string with base64 content when no path is given). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but for a read-only download this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with Args and Returns sections and is appropriately sized. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Download activity as a GPX file' and 'Converts and downloads...'), but overall it is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, return type, and parameter semantics. It could mention error conditions, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section essentially restates the schema with an added example path. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Download activity as a GPX file,' a specific verb+resource+format statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like download_fit_file. It also mentions conversion to GPX, reinforcing the tool's unique role among download-related tools.
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 description implies when to use the tool ('compatible with most GPS devices'), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like download_fit_file or download_activity_file. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool gets data (read-only) and returns a JSON string, but does not discuss permissions, error conditions, or any side effects. It adds some context (interval types) but lacks depth on behavior beyond the obvious 'get' operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary, purpose, args section, and return note. It is relatively concise and not repetitive, though it could be trimmed slightly (e.g., 'Essential for...' is optional).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the data will contain and the primary use case. It doesn't cover potential limitations or relationships to other interval-related tools, but this is not critical given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (activity_id is fully described). The description repeats the parameter with 'unique ID' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves structured interval data for an activity, listing specific content (targets, actual performance, interval types). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_activity_details (general details) or get_activity_streams (time-series data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for analyzing structured workouts and training compliance, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and describes the output as 'JSON string with event details,' plus the contents (metrics, descriptions, workout structure). It does not mention edge cases like missing event IDs, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args/Returns sections are helpful and not overly verbose, though the 'Returns' sentence repeats the earlier 'Returns complete details' concept slightly. Overall, every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter get tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and the parameter. It lacks explicit error-handling notes, but given the simplicity and the output schema's presence, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'Event ID to retrieve' for the parameter. The description adds 'The unique ID of the event,' which is a minor semantic enhancement. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description adds marginal value, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get detailed information for a specific calendar event,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_calendar_events by emphasizing 'specific' and 'single event,' and adds scope by listing included details (metrics, descriptions, workout structure).
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 description implies use for fetching one event by ID but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_calendar_events or state when not to use it. The phrase 'specific calendar event' gives some context, but no direct exclusion or alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format ('JSON string'), the nature of the data ('detailed information about all workouts'), and specific content aspects ('structure, intensity, and training load'). While it does not mention edge cases or permissions, for a read-only getter this is adequate and adds useful context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the primary purpose. The Args and Returns sections are slightly redundant with the schema but provide a quick reference. Overall, it is well-organized and economical, though not as minimal as a two-sentence description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with an existing output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose, parameter, and return type. However, it does not explain how a training plan differs from a folder or why the tool might be preferred over get_workout_library, leaving minor contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter folder_id, so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats this semantic in the Args section without adding new detail, except the phrase 'or training plan' in the main text, which hints at additional interpretation but is not explained. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get all workouts') and a targeted resource ('in a specific folder or training plan'). It also enumerates the kind of detail returned ('structure, intensity, and training load'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_workout_library.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need workouts from a particular folder), but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or provide alternatives such as get_workout_library or get_upcoming_workouts. There is no comparison to sibling tools, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('Searches the athlete's activity history') and return format ('JSON string with matching activities'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, or whether the search is case-sensitive, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a brief summary, a supporting sentence, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without verbosity, and the key points are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose, usage context, parameters, and return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not needed. It lacks explicit differentiation from search_activities_full, but for a simple 2-parameter tool with good annotations (none here), it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an 'Args' section with examples for 'query' ('threshold', 'long run', 'race') and explaining the default for 'limit', going beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states 'Search for activities by name or tag' and specifies 'Searches the athlete's activity history', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_activities_full', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with 'Useful for finding specific workouts or activity types', indicating when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key effect (recalculates training load, zones, other derived metrics) and that it applies to historical activities, optionally filtered by oldest_date. However, it does not state whether this is destructive/irreversible, whether it overwrites existing activity data, or if any permissions/backups are needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary line, a brief explanation paragraph, and an Args list. It is concise but includes minor redundancy with the schema (Args reproduces schema descriptions). Still, every sentence contributes context and it is not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema covers return values and the tool is relatively simple, the description leaves the semantics of oldest_date ambiguous (does it apply to activities on/after that date or before?) and does not clarify whether the operation is reversible or what specific activities are affected. For a mutation tool, more explicit scope and side-effect information would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions; the description's Args section largely duplicates this. However, it adds the clarification that oldest_date 'defaults to all' which explains the null default, providing extra meaning beyond the schema. It also reinforces 'current sport settings' in the narrative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Apply sport settings (zones, thresholds) to historical activities' with a specific verb ('apply') and resource, and further explains that it recalculates training load, zones, and derived metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sport_settings (which edits settings) and get_sport_settings (which retrieves).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage: to apply sport settings to historical activities and recalculate derived metrics. It provides context that the operation affects historical activities based on current settings, and mentions the optional oldest_date cutoff. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, unlike the highest standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that a new gear item is created and that the return includes ID and initial stats, but it does not disclose side effects such as behavior when 'primary' is set to True and a primary gear of that type already exists, or any permissions required. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a well-organized docstring with a concise summary, a clear Args section with defaults and examples, and a Returns section. Every line adds useful information, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, but the operation is straightforward and the output schema mitigates the need for detailed return descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema info and adds examples (e.g., 'Road Bike') and clarifications of defaults, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new gear item for tracking equipment usage and maintenance,' which uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('gear item'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_gear, delete_gear, and create_gear_reminder by focusing on creation of gear items only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for new gear items and lists parameters with examples, making the creation context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_gear for modifying existing gear or create_gear_reminder for reminders, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the GAP definition and return format, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what happens if an activity lacks elevation data, or any error conditions. Given the read-only nature is implied by 'get', this is adequate but not deeply transparent—hence a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise explanation of GAP, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easily scannable with zero fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is quite complete: it provides the purpose, the underlying concept, the input, and the return type. However, it could have explicitly mentioned that the operation is non-destructive (no annotations to confirm) or noted any prerequisites like elevation data. Still, it's well-rounded for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes activity_id as 'Activity ID to analyze' with 100% coverage. The description adds only 'The unique ID of the activity,' which is a minor nuance. Since the schema carries the parameter semantics, the description adds minimal value beyond the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get grade-adjusted pace (GAP) histogram for an activity,' a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates from sibling histogram tools (e.g., get_pace_histogram, get_hr_histogram) by highlighting 'grade-adjusted' and 'GAP'. It also explains the normalization concept, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Useful for trail running to understand true effort distribution independent of terrain.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., flat terrain might use get_pace_histogram). While not as explicit as naming siblings, the guidance is actionable, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only nature ('Get', 'Analyzes') and describes the return format ('JSON string with HR distribution bins'). Yet it lacks details on bin definition, edge cases (e.g., missing HR data), or other behavioral specifics, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and organized with clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return type. It does not explain bin specifics, but the output schema likely provides that structure, making this sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (activity_id is already described as 'Activity ID to analyze'). The description merely repeats the parameter and adds 'unique ID', which adds no significant new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Get heart rate distribution histogram for an activity' and elaborates on analyzing time spent at different HR levels. This clearly identifies the resource and action, and the 'HR' specification distinguishes it from sibling histogram tools (power, pace, gap).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is 'Useful for understanding cardiovascular load and training zone distribution,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns only workout events and that it outputs a JSON string, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe error behavior, rate limits, or authorization needs. This is acceptable but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using a clear first sentence for purpose, a second for filtering detail, and a standard Args/Returns format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, what it filters out, and the parameter. Some ambiguity remains about the exact definition of 'upcoming days' (e.g., start time, timezone), but given the low complexity, the description is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the 'limit' parameter with 100% coverage, including its default value. The description merely repeats this information without adding any extra semantic detail, so it provides no value beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves upcoming planned workouts from the calendar and explicitly differentiates itself by filtering out notes, races, and goals, making it distinct from sibling calendar tools like get_calendar_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that it is useful for seeing planned training ahead, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_calendar_events for non-workout events, so the exclusion of other calendar events is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that only provided fields are modified and others remain unchanged, which is important partial-update behavior. It also states the return format (JSON string), adding transparency beyond the opaque schema.
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 opening paragraph is concise and front-loaded, but the Args block largely duplicates the input schema's parameter descriptions, adding redundancy. The Returns line is useful but the overall structure could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and parameters are fully described in the schema, the description adequately covers the patch-style update behavior and return type. It does not explain error cases or authorization, but those are not essential for a simple update tool with a rich schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the partial-update semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing calendar event' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_event, delete_event, and duplicate_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that this tool modifies existing events and explicitly instructs to only provide fields to change, implying partial updates. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the existing-event emphasis differentiates it from create/delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that reminders can be based on distance, time, or both and will be marked as due when the threshold is reached, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or reversibility, which are typical for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear overview, a description of behavior, and an Args/Returns layout. Every section adds value with minimal redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the main behavior and parameters, it leaves ambiguity about whether at least one of distance_alert or time_alert must be provided. Both are optional in the schema, and the description does not state what happens if neither is set, which is a notable gap for a reminder creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameters with nearly identical wording (e.g., 'Alert every N kilometers') and does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a maintenance reminder for a gear item, with specific details about distance/time-based alerts. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_gear_reminder, which modify existing reminders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to create a reminder) and explains the threshold-based trigger, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_gear_reminder for modifying reminders. The context is clear, but no direct comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and describes the return value. However, it does not mention error behavior or permission requirements, which are common for delete operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured with a clear heading, a warning about irreversibility, and explicit Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, permanence, parameter, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, especially given the surrounding sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents event_id with a clear description and 100% coverage. The description merely restates the schema parameter without adding new semantic details, so it provides minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action 'Delete a calendar event' and clarifies it's a permanent removal, distinguishing it from bulk_delete_events and other calendar operations.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like bulk_delete_events. The context of deleting a single calendar event is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the analysis approach (finding peak HR outputs for durations) and default behavior (90 days), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or note any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, usage context, Args section, and Returns note. It is suitably concise without unnecessary padding, though the second paragraph could be integrated more tightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, parameters, and return type. It does not over-explain, and there are no obvious missing prerequisites or caveats for a read-only analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes both parameters, but the description adds value by explaining that days_back overrides time_period, providing exact time_period shorthand mappings (week=7, month=30, year=365, all), and noting the default (90 days). This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get heart rate curve data showing best efforts for various durations' with a specific verb and resource. It explains that it analyzes HR data to find peak outputs for different time durations, distinguishing it from related siblings like get_power_curves and get_pace_curves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool ('tracking cardiovascular fitness improvements and identifying HR zones'), giving clear user intent. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the strongest form of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the analysis behavior and return format (JSON string with bins), but does not disclose potential edge cases, permissions, or whether it is strictly read-only. It is adequate for a simple histogram tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear heading, a brief description, and separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is useful, and what the return format is. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description reiterates the parameter with 'The unique ID of the activity', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not significantly enhance the understanding of the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Get pace distribution histogram for an activity') and explains what it does (shows time spent at different pace levels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_power_histogram and get_hr_histogram by focusing on pace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use it ('Useful for running activities to understand pace distribution and consistency'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string), scope ('available to you'), and the nature of the data (structured workouts applicable to calendar). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'get' verb and absence of side-effect language make it clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise and well-structured, using line breaks to separate the summary, details, and return format. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Returns:' section, but it does not detract significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the scope and contents of the result and notes the applicability to calendars. The description would be slightly improved by mentioning pagination or limits, but these are not critical for this simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema offers no parameter semantics. The description adds useful context about the return value (folders/plans) but does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get workout library folders and training plans.' It enumerates included content (personal, shared, followed plans) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workouts_in_folder by focusing on the top-level library rather than individual folder contents.
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?
Usage context is implied: this tool is for retrieving all available workout folders and training plans. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like get_workouts_in_folder or get_upcoming_workouts, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the search scope ('across all activities') and return type, but fails to explain what 'similar' means (e.g., exact matching vs fuzzy), result ordering, or performance limitations. The ambiguity of 'similar intervals' leaves key behavior undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear Arg and Returns sections. It is concise but slightly redundant: the first two sentences both state the search intent. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only search tool with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the cross-activity scope and gives usage context. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'similar intervals' or how the search matches criteria, which is a notable gap for a tool that relies on such semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example values for interval_type ('WORK', 'THRESHOLD', 'VO2MAX') and reaffirming the default for limit, which helps an agent understand expected inputs beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for similar intervals across all activities' and 'Finds intervals matching specific criteria across your activity history.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_activity_intervals (which retrieves intervals for a single activity) and search_activities (which searches activities, not intervals).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Useful for tracking progress on specific workout types or finding comparable training sessions.' It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the use cases are concrete enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by specifying partial-update semantics and the return type (JSON string with updated activity information). It does not mention side effects or error cases, but the core behavior is well-covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear summary, behavior note, Args list, and Returns. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the Args section duplicates the schema, adding some redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, but it could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, partial-update semantics, parameter meanings, and return format. It lacks explicit prerequisites or error handling, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema, adding only minor nuance (e.g., 'feel: Subjective feel rating (1=terrible, 5=great)' vs schema's 'How you felt (1-5 scale)'). The added value is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing activity's metadata' and 'Modifies one or more fields of an existing activity.' This distinguishes it well from siblings like delete_activity or get_activity_details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage ('Only provide the fields you want to change - other fields will remain unchanged'), implying a partial-update pattern. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string with file info and base64 content) and the conditional behavior when output_path is provided. It does not mention idempotency or file size limits, but the core download behavior is clearly described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary, detailed paragraph, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and a clear return behavior. The description covers the essential usage and return semantics, though it does not specify what 'file info' includes or the exact return when output_path is set. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference based on output_path (base64 vs saving) and provides an example path. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('original activity file'), and lists the file formats (FIT, TCX, GPX). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_fit_file and download_gpx_file, which likely target specific formats.
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 description implies its use for retrieving the original uploaded file and mentions an optional save path, but it does not explicitly contrast with download_fit_file or download_gpx_file. There is no direct when-to-use vs alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that activities are retrieved 'chronologically surrounding' the reference activity and that a JSON string is returned. While read-only is implied, it is not explicitly stated; however, the read nature is clear and there is no contradiction with annotations (none present).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary, detailed explanation, and Args/Returns sections. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences (both state the core 'before/after' behavior), but overall it is concise and every sentence adds context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return type, with no gaps. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return structure. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly and understand the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema (activity_id as reference, count as number before/after with default 5), adding little beyond what the schema already states. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get activities before and after a specific activity' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_activities or get_activity_details by emphasizing the contextual 'surrounding' aspect, making the tool's unique purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states use cases ('useful for understanding training context, progression, or finding related workouts'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (JSON string) and additional content (interpretations, recommendations), which goes beyond a bare 'get' statement. It does not mention data freshness or error behavior, but for a parameterless read-only tool, disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with bullet points, front-loading the primary purpose. The only minor redundancy is repeating 'Returns' in both prose and a labeled section, but it is not excessive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what metrics are included, interpretations, recommendations, and return format. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the returned metrics (CTL, ATL, TSB, Ramp Rate), which is more than the schema alone provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('athlete's current fitness, fatigue, and form metrics') and enumerates concrete metrics (CTL, ATL, TSB, Ramp Rate). No sibling tool provides this summary, so it is clearly differentiated.
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 description explains what the tool returns but does not state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context implies it is for training status overview, but there is no explicit guidance or naming of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Get') and returns a formatted list with specific data, but it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, permission requirements, or exact formatting. For a simple get-all tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear two-sentence structure. Minor redundancy: the return line repeats 'usage stats and reminders' already mentioned in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the scope ('all gear'), the included data, and the return format. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description adds value by clarifying that 'all gear items' are returned, making the absence of filtering explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'all gear items', and adds context 'usage statistics and maintenance reminders'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling gear tools like create_gear, update_gear, delete_gear, which are mutation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies its usage: it retrieves all gear items with associated data. Since no sibling tool does this (others are CRUD or reminders), the context is clear and no exclusions are needed, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by revealing the create-if-missing behavior and partial-update semantics. It also documents the subjective 1-5 scale and the JSON return format. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but these are not critical for an update tool.
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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but the 'Args' section largely repeats the input schema's field descriptions, making it longer than necessary. The early sentences and scale explanation are valuable, but the duplication prevents a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral context: upsert, partial updates, metric scales, and return type. It could explicitly state that unspecified fields are left unchanged for existing records, but 'Only provide the fields you want to update' strongly implies partial merge semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful scale anchors ('1 = Very low/poor, 3 = Normal/moderate, 5 = Very high/excellent') and units alongside the arg list. The description therefore adds value beyond the schema, though much of the arg list duplicates schema names and descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update wellness data for a specific date,' and the upsert line clarifies the write scope. This distinguishes it from read-only wellness siblings like get_wellness_for_date and from other update_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys when to use the tool by stating it updates wellness metrics for a specified date and supports partial updates ('Only provide the fields you want to update'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanent deletion, removal of associated maintenance reminders, non-impact on activities, and a confirmation return. This is strong transparency, though it could add details about authorization requirements or error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly written: a one-sentence summary, two behavioral notes, and a clean Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete operation with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, side effects, input, and return value. It is complete and well-suited for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with gear_id described identically in both schema and description. The description's Args section adds no new 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a gear item permanently' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_activity and update_gear. It also specifies the scope of deletion (gear item and associated reminders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to delete a gear item. It provides context on side effects (removes reminders, activities unaffected), which helps the agent decide among alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the main behavior: the tool copies an existing event and only changes the date, implying the original event is preserved. It also states the return value. It does not discuss permissions or error cases, but for a tool of this simplicity the transparency is adequate and not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a single explanatory sentence, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two mandatory parameters, a documented return value, and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, the argument formats, and the expected return. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for event_id and new_date. The description's Args section largely restates the schema (e.g., 'ID of the event to duplicate' and 'New date in YYYY-MM-DD format') without adding extra semantic detail. Thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Purpose is crystal clear: 'Duplicate an existing event to a new date' is a specific verb+resource combination. The second sentence 'Creates a copy of an event with all its properties but with a new date' further distinguishes this from create_event by emphasizing that it copies an existing event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear use case: 'Useful for repeating workouts or events.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_event or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool analyzes an activity and returns a JSON string with best efforts data, which implies a read-only computational operation. It does not address permissions or potential errors, but the behavioral core is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: purpose, examples, args, and returns are clearly separated. No sentence is wasted; the Strava analogy and duration examples aid comprehension without bloating the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what input is required, and what format the output takes. The examples of durations make the expected result concrete, and the output schema handles detailed field documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, activity_id, is already fully described in the input schema ('Activity ID to analyze'). The description repeats this as 'The unique ID of the activity' without adding format, source, or usage detail, so it adds no meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('best efforts/peak performances from an activity'), and clarifies the concept with duration examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_activity_intervals or get_power_curves by focusing on peak performance summaries rather than raw interval/curve data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states the use case: finding best performances across durations such as 5-second, 1-minute, and 20-minute efforts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, only drawing an analogy to Strava segments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool does (analyzes pace data across running/swimming activities), how it works (finds best pace outputs for durations), and its return format (JSON string). It also discloses the GAP option. This goes beyond a simple statement, though it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or potential limitations. The behavior is well-described for a query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, a brief explanation, an Args block, and a Returns line. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan. The args block partially duplicates schema information but adds useful override/default details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return fields extensively. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and an example of use. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention what the JSON output contains in more detail if no output schema were provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it notes that 'days_back overrides time_period' and clarifies the effective default of 90 days for time_period, which is not evident from the schema (default null). This added context improves understanding of parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get pace curve data showing best efforts for various durations.' It provides specific examples of durations (400m, 1km, 5km, 10km) and mentions running/swimming activities, making it easy to distinguish from related tools like get_best_efforts or get_pace_histogram. The verb 'Get' and resource 'pace curve data' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Useful for tracking running fitness and race predictions,' giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool retrieves and analyzes power data, and returns a JSON string, implying a read-only operation. It adds value by describing the analysis behavior and return format, though it lacks explicit mention of edge cases or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a concise opener, a short analysis explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences ('best efforts' and 'peak power outputs'), but overall it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and full schema coverage for parameters, the description covers essential context. It also explains the parameter override and default, making it sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by explaining that days_back overrides time_period and that time_period defaults to 90 days, which is not evident from the schema alone. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('power curve data') with a clear scope ('best efforts for various durations'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like get_hr_curves and get_pace_curves by focusing on power-specific analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'tracking performance improvements and identifying strengths/weaknesses across different power duration profiles.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a user to understand when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains how the tool works ('Analyzes how power was distributed across the activity, showing time spent at different power levels') and what it returns ('JSON string with power distribution bins'). This goes beyond a simple one-liner, though it omits potential edge cases like missing power data or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a short use-case paragraph, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler. The slight redundancy between the first line and the second paragraph is minor and does not detract from overall clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it states the purpose, explains the analysis, identifies a use case, defines the only parameter, and specifies the return format. Since an output schema is present, the description does not need to enumerate bins. No critical context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for activity_id with a clear description. The Args section essentially repeats the schema ('activity_id: The unique ID of the activity') without adding format details, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get power distribution histogram for an activity.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_hr_histogram and get_pace_histogram by naming 'power' explicitly, and the phrase 'power distribution histogram' uniquely identifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use-case context: 'Useful for understanding workout intensity distribution and identifying training zones.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative histogram tools (e.g., get_hr_histogram, get_pace_histogram) or mention when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest bar for usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the operation is permanent, cannot be undone, and returns a JSON string with deletion confirmation, covering the key behavioral trait of irreversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a title, body, and Args/Returns sections. However, the first three sentences are somewhat redundant ('Delete', 'Permanently removes', 'cannot be undone' all convey irreversibility), making it slightly less concise than ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It covers the operation, consequences, parameter, and return type, requiring no additional context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor wording ('unique ID', 'to delete') that slightly clarifies but does not provide substantive new meaning beyond the schema's 'Activity ID to delete'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as 'Delete an activity permanently' and explicitly states it 'Permanently removes an activity from your account', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_activity or delete_event. The resource and verb are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by emphasizing permanence and irreversibility ('This action cannot be undone') and advising 'Use with caution.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context strongly implies this is for irreversible deletion only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it converts and downloads, and the Returns section explains the conditional behavior—if no output_path is given, it returns a JSON string with base64 content. This is valuable beyond what annotations would provide, though it does not mention mutability or permissions (likely irrelevant for a download).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise overview, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value: format compatibility, parameter explanations, and return behavior. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format, which is sufficient for a 2-param tool. However, it does not address the sibling download_activity_file, leaving potential ambiguity about which download tool to choose. Minor gap given the tool's otherwise clear scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of omitting output_path (returns base64 content) and provides an example path, enriching the optional parameter semantics beyond the schema's 'optional' note.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Download activity as a FIT file' and elaborates that it converts activity to FIT format, which is compatible with Garmin. This specific verb+resource+format clearly distinguishes it from the sibling download_gpx_file and generic download_activity_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use the tool by mentioning compatibility with Garmin and most training platforms, implying use when FIT format is needed. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like download_gpx_file or download_activity_file, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output (JSON string) and the contents (all metrics, power data, heart rate, training load), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention potential performance impacts of a high limit, or describe error cases. While not misleading, it lacks thorough behavioral disclosure, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a clear summary, a differentiation/usage note, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple two-parameter search, the description provides adequate context: purpose, usage, parameter explanations, and return type. It could benefit from mentioning default ordering or whether it searches all activities globally, but these are minor omissions for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds practical value with concrete examples for the query parameter ('threshold', 'long run', 'race', '#interval') and confirms the default for limit. This goes beyond simply restating schema definitions, enriching the meaning of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Search for activities by name or tag') and clearly differentiates from the sibling tool by noting 'Unlike the basic search, this returns full Activity objects...' This firmly establishes the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the simpler search_activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need detailed information about matching activities.' It also contrasts with the basic search, implying when the alternative would be more appropriate, thus covering when-to-use and the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 well by explaining the return format, listing stream types, and clarifying that omitting streams fetches all. It doesn't mention error handling or auth, but the read-only nature is clear and the behavioral details are solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening, explanatory note, bulleted stream list, and Args/Returns sections. It's detailed but every element serves a purpose, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type comprehensively. It misses explicit sibling differentiation and edge-case behavior, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning by enumerating each valid stream type with its unit/meaning (e.g., 'watts: Power data'), which the schema alone doesn't provide. It also confirms the default behavior of the streams parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get time-series data streams for an activity.' It lists all stream types, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_activity_details or get_activity_intervals by focusing on raw time-series data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States the data is 'essential for detailed workout analysis and visualization,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![intervals-icu-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/eddmann/intervals-icu-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/eddmann/intervals-icu-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![intervals-icu-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/eddmann/intervals-icu-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/eddmann/intervals-icu-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eddmann/intervals-icu-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server