Retrieve lifetime, year-to-date, and recent 4-week totals for runs, rides, and swims, including distance, time, and elevation, to track training load and progress.
Return lifetime, year-to-date, and recent (last 4 weeks) totals for the athlete.
Covers run, ride, and swim distance/time/elevation. Useful for tracking load and progress over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the returned aggregation windows and the specific metrics, which is sufficient for a read-only, zero-parameter stats endpoint. It does not discuss response structure or auth, but nothing about the tool suggests hidden side effects or surprising behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful scope and use-case context without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and in what time buckets. It could be slightly more complete by noting units or response format, but for a simple aggregate-stats tool it provides enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not mistakenly imply parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('totals for the athlete') with clear time scopes (lifetime, year-to-date, last 4 weeks). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_activity or list_activities by emphasizing aggregated statistics rather than individual records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'tracking load and progress over time.' It also enumerates the covered sports and metrics, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools or when not to use this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.