Retrieve daily or weekly step totals across a date range, defaulting to the last four weeks, to review walking activity trends.
Step totals over a date range. granularity 'daily' (Garmin caps the span at 28 days) or 'weekly'. Default: daily, last ~4 weeks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD). Default: today. | |
| startDate | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD). Default: ~4 weeks ago. | |
| granularity | No | daily or weekly. Default: daily. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the Garmin 28-day cap for daily granularity and the default window, which is genuinely useful. However it never states that this is a read-only operation, what happens when the span exceeds the cap (error vs. truncation), or anything about the shape of the returned totals.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the primary subject lands first and the granularity constraint and defaults follow. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 simple zero-required-parameter read with full schema coverage, this covers resource, granularity options, cap, and defaults. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no description of the returned structure (per-day/per-week points, units), which an agent would have to discover at call time.
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 100%, so all three parameters and their defaults are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only adds the 28-day cap tied to the granularity enum, restating the daily default that the schema already provides.
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?
States a concrete resource (step totals) and a scope (over a date range), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It doesn't name the closest sibling (get_daily_health), which likely also surfaces step data, so differentiation from siblings is left to inference.
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?
The defaults ('daily, last ~4 weeks') imply when this tool is a good fit for a broad recent trend, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of get_daily_health as an alternative for single-day detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.