Retrieve body mass measurements and body composition data when available for a custom date range or the last 90 days.
Gewichtsmessungen (inkl. Körperzusammensetzung, falls vorhanden). Standard: letzte 90 Tage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | 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 discloses the default date window and the conditional inclusion of body composition, but says nothing about auth requirements, return shape, pagination, or whether the range is inclusive — thin for a data-retrieval tool with no structured safety hints.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the default range — no filler. Its brevity is close to under-specification, but on this dimension it is efficient and well-ordered.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain date formats, range semantics, and return contents. It only covers the default window and conditional body-composition field, leaving material gaps an agent must guess at.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters ('start_date', 'end_date') have only titles, no format or semantics. The description compensates only for the default (last 90 days) and never explains expected date format, inclusivity, or how the two bounds interact.
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 the resource clearly ('Gewichtsmessungen' including body composition when available) and notes the default window. It implies retrieval but never uses a verb like 'retrieve/list', and does not name distinguishing boundaries versus siblings such as daily_summaries or profile, though the resource name makes the distinction reasonably obvious.
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 only guidance is the default 90-day window; there is no statement of when to use this versus daily_summaries, profile, or other body-metric tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.