request_reloadReload fitness data for a specific date when older records are missing or offloaded by Garmin, restoring access to historical activity and health metrics.
Request reload of data for a specific date (useful for older data that was offloaded by Garmin).
| 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 signal destructive and open-world hints, and the description adds the context that data is offloaded by Garmin, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on the implications of the destructive hint, such as whether existing data is overwritten or if the request is asynchronous. The description adds some value beyond the annotations but leaves behavioral details unexplored.
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 20-word sentence with the core action front-loaded. It provides essential context in an efficient parenthetical, with zero unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and when it's needed. It could explain return behavior or asynchronous nature, but the absence is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete.
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 schema covers the date parameter thoroughly with a description, regex pattern, and required flag, achieving 100% coverage. The tool's description only refers to 'a specific date', adding no further meaning. Since the schema carries the full weight, a baseline score of 3 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 states 'Request reload of data for a specific date' with a specific verb and resource. It adds the important context that it's for older data offloaded by Garmin, which differentiates it from siblings like download_activity or get_activity_details. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.
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?
'useful for older data that was offloaded by Garmin' explicitly describes when to use this tool, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar. This is clear context without exclusions, scoring a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.