get_user_summaryRetrieve a complete daily activity summary for any date, including steps, calories, distance, and active minutes, to track fitness progress.
Get comprehensive user activity summary for a specific date including steps, calories, distance, active minutes, and more.
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds the date-scoping constraint ('for a specific date') which is beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what 'comprehensive' includes beyond a few metrics, nor does it mention any limitations or edge cases (e.g., missing data for a date). With annotations handling the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes a non-exhaustive list of metrics. No filler or redundancy. Perfectly efficient.
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?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by naming the type of data returned (steps, calories, distance, active minutes). However, 'and more' is vague, and with many sibling tools, a bit more specificity about the scope (e.g., all activity data for that date, or only specific metrics) would improve completeness. Still, for a straightforward getter, it covers the essentials.
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% (the 'date' parameter has a pattern and description). The description reinforces that the parameter is a specific date. It adds no additional format details or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is justified.
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 states the tool fetches a comprehensive user activity summary for a specific date, listing key metrics like steps, calories, distance, and active minutes. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('user activity summary') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_summary or get_progress_summary, which could also return similar data.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. This is a notable gap given the large number of sibling tools with overlapping functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.