Retrieve daily Garmin energy expenditure—active, resting, total, and activity-based—with averages to track burn trends over a chosen period.
Daily calories burned: active, resting, total, and from recorded activities, with averages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the shape of the returned data; it says nothing about the 14-day default window, what 'end' anchors, timezone handling, or that results come from an external fitness provider (relevant given openWorldHint).
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned fields. It is efficient, though the enumeration of return fields is only marginally useful without any usage or parameter guidance.
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 two-parameter, zero-coverage schema with no output schema, the description should explain the date range semantics and default window. It describes the return payload instead, leaving the agent to guess what 'end' and 'days' do and how averages are computed.
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 neither of the two parameters is documented anywhere: 'days' has only a default of 14 and 'end' is an untyped nullable string. The description's use of 'Daily' and 'averages' faintly implies a multi-day window but never explains either parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific resource (daily calories burned) and enumerates the breakdown it returns: active, resting, total, and from recorded activities. That is far more informative than the bare name 'calories'. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like daily, timeseries, or list_metrics, which likely also return daily health metrics.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus daily, timeseries, list_metrics, or dashboard_data, all of which plausibly return overlapping daily metric data. No prerequisites, no data-source notes, no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.