icu_get_gear_listList all gear items with usage stats—distance, time, activity count—and maintenance reminders. Use it to review equipment wear and plan upkeep for an athlete.
List all gear items with usage stats (distance, time, activity count) and maintenance reminders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| athlete_id | No | Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.1Input schema / properties / athlete_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful scope word 'all' and names the stat categories returned, but says nothing about pagination, whether archived/retired gear is included, or how reminders are surfaced — and the output schema already documents return 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 well-formed sentence with the resource first and the returned data enumerated parenthetically. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — return content is sketched and scope is stated. The remaining gap is the default behavior when athlete_id is null, which is the only decision an agent actually has to make.
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?
Only one optional parameter (athlete_id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the coach/multi-athlete scoping. The description adds no meaning beyond it — it does not say what happens when athlete_id is omitted, which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves open.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('List all gear items') plus an enumeration of the contents (distance, time, activity count, maintenance reminders). It is the only read/list gear tool among siblings dominated by create/update/delete gear operations, so the agent can identify it without ambiguity, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those mutators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'list all' — the agent can infer this is the retrieval endpoint for gear inventory. However there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. authentication or athlete scoping), and no reference to the sibling gear-mutation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.