Skip to main content
Glama

get_floors

Read-only

Fetch daily floors data from Garmin Connect for a specific date (YYYY-MM-DD) to track your floor count.

Instructions

Fetch available floors data 'cDate' format 'YYYY-MM-DD'. (Garmin Connect, read-only. Dates are YYYY-MM-DD.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cdate": "<cdate>"
    },
    "name": "get_floors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cdateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds the data source ('Garmin Connect'), which is modestly useful, but restates read-only redundantly and says nothing about granularity (daily total vs intraday) or empty-day behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loads the action, but wastes space by stating the date format three times ('cDate' format 'YYYY-MM-DD', then 'Dates are YYYY-MM-DD') and repeating the read-only annotation. Condensing to one sentence would lose nothing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter's format is given. Still missing is what 'floors' measures and its aggregation level, which matters given the crowded set of daily-metric siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does supply the essential 'YYYY-MM-DD' format for cdate. However, the parameter is referenced as both 'cDate' and 'cdate' (matching neither the schema's lowercase consistently), and it does not clarify timezone or whether the date must be within a data range.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch available floors data'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_steps_data, get_heart_rates, or get_intensity_minutes_data. It does not explicitly name siblings or contrast scope, but the resource name is distinctive enough for selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other daily-metric tools (steps, intensity minutes, stress), and no stated preconditions. The only implied usage is passing a date; the agent must infer everything else from the resource name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.