Skip to main content
Glama

get_hill_score

Read-only

Retrieves daily hill scores from Garmin Connect for a specified date range, helping you track hill training performance over time.

Instructions

Return hill score by day from 'startdate' format 'YYYY-MM-DD' to enddate '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": {
      "startdate": "<startdate>"
    },
    "name": "get_hill_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enddateNo
startdateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates 'read-only', adding no new safety or behavioral context. It adds 'Garmin Connect' as the data source, which is useful, but says nothing about granularity, aggregation across a range, or what happens if enddate is omitted.

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-loaded with the purpose, but the YYYY-MM-DD format is stated twice in a single sentence, which is wasted space in an already terse description.

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-value explanation is not required, and both parameters are mentioned. Still missing is the meaning of the metric and the semantics of the optional enddate, which matter for a two-parameter ranged retrieval tool.

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 parameter meaning; it does supply the YYYY-MM-DD format for both startdate and enddate, which is genuinely additive. However, it never explains that enddate is optional (default null) or what behavior that triggers, leaving a real gap for the optional parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return hill score by day') plus the source system (Garmin Connect), which is enough to distinguish it from the many other daily-metric siblings. It does not define what a 'hill score' measures, so an agent unfamiliar with the metric gets the retrieval shape but not the semantic content.

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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only conditional information is the date format, which is a parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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