get_body_battery_eventsFetch daily body battery events for any date—sleep, activities, and naps that impacted energy levels—to identify what affected your energy.
Get Body Battery events for a date (sleep, activities, naps that affected energy levels).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description does not add substantial behavioral details beyond what is already known. It does mention the type of content returned (events affecting energy), which adds some context, but it does not disclose additional traits such as data volume, pagination, or side effects. Since it doesn't contradict annotations, it earns a moderate score.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. It contains zero redundancy and every word adds value, fully meeting conciseness and structure expectations.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the type of data returned (events impacting energy) and the required input (date). While it doesn't detail output format or edge cases, the simplicity and annotation coverage support this score.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter (date) with format and description, covering 100% of parameters. The description's mention of 'for a date' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra semantics, so this score is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: getting Body Battery events for a specific date, with an explicit clarification of what constitutes events (sleep, activities, naps impacting energy levels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_body_battery (which likely returns battery trends) and get_all_day_events (broader scope), fulfilling the purpose clarity requirement.
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 description implies usage (retrieving events for a date) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks conditional context that would help an agent decide between this and similar tools, leaving usage implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.