Retrieve overnight heart rate variability (HRV) data for a specific date, with optional time-series measurements when include_timeseries is enabled.
HRV einer Nacht mit Einzelmessungen (Zeitreihe nur mit include_timeseries=true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| include_timeseries | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — time series data is only returned when include_timeseries=true — but says nothing about read-only nature, date resolution, night boundaries, or output shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the conditional timeseries constraint is front-loaded in parentheses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin for a data-retrieval tool. Key details — date semantics, what a 'night' window covers, and what individual measurements look like — are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains include_timeseries behavior (time series only when true), but the optional date parameter and its null default are never addressed, leaving the agent to guess what date=null means.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it returns HRV for one night including individual measurements, which implicitly separates it from the aggregate hrv_summaries sibling. It does not explicitly name siblings or clarify the 'day' vs 'night' naming mismatch, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never references alternatives such as hrv_summaries or sleep_day. Usage is only implied by the resource name and the timeseries note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.