Run an analytical SQL query on Apple Health data to extract insights, with support for joins, CTEs, and window functions.
Run one analytical query on Apple Health data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | One DuckDB analytical query. Joins, CTEs, subqueries, set operations, and window functions are supported. | |
| format | No | Output format (default: json) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.5Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"SQL SELECT query to execute"New value: +"One DuckDB analytical query. Joins, CTEs, subqueries, set operations, and window functions are supported."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool runs a query but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, whether there are side effects, limits on query complexity or result size, or what the tool returns. 'Analytical query' weakly implies a read operation, but this is under-specified for a tool that accepts arbitrary SQL.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the verb, resource, and scope immediately. It is concise, but so terse that it misses opportunities to add routing or behavioral context that would make it more genuinely helpful.
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 tool accepting arbitrary DuckDB SQL over health data, an agent needs to know how to discover available tables and fields IAW health_schema, and what output shape or limits to expect. With no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of health_schema, the description is only minimally viable.
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 the schema already documents the query string and the format enum including the default JSON value. The description adds the 'one analytical query' framing but no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the resource ('Apple Health data'), with the qualifier 'one analytical query.' It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools health_report and health_schema.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when an analytical query needs to be executed against Apple Health data. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over health_report or health_schema, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.