Retrieve a per-day Garmin health summary covering sleep, HRV, resting heart rate, Body Battery, stress, calories, steps, training load, form, recovery, and readiness.
Everything known per day: sleep, HRV, resting HR, Body Battery, stress, calories, steps, training load, form, recovery and readiness estimate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. The description's contribution is the enumeration of returned metrics, which is useful context, but it says nothing about how many days are returned by default, how 'end' bounds the window, or the ordering/granularity of results.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metric list is dense but every item adds information. It would be slightly stronger if it ended with scope or usage rather than only a comma-separated enumeration.
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?
An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, but for a two-parameter tool sitting among many near-duplicate siblings the definition omits parameter meaning and selection guidance. That leaves an agent unable to decide between this and timeseries/list_metrics without opening the schema.
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 the description never mentions either parameter. 'days' (default 7) and 'end' (nullable string) are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the low-coverage schema; 'per day' only weakly hints at daily granularity.
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 phrase 'Everything known per day' plus a metric list conveys that this returns a daily aggregate of many body metrics, but there is no verb (get/fetch) and no differentiation from overlapping siblings such as timeseries, list_metrics, dashboard_data, training_load, hrv_night, or calories. An agent can guess the domain but not the exact operation relative to those alternatives.
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 versus the 21 siblings, several of which return the same metrics (hrv_night, calories, training_load, timeseries, dashboard_data). No prerequisites, no mention of date-range defaults or authorisation needs are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.