Retrieve detailed metrics, laps, and zones for any completed COROS activity using its ID and sport type. Omit large graph arrays to focus on essential performance data.
Read the detailed metrics, laps and zones for one completed COROS activity. Large graph arrays are omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sportType | Yes | ||
| activityId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that large graph arrays are omitted, and that the activity must be completed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps manage expectations.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a crucial limitation. It is highly efficient 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?
The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description must cover both input semantics and return format. It explains the general content (metrics, laps, zones) and the omission (graph arrays), but does not describe the exact structure of the response or clarify the role of sportType. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent, though the tool is relatively simple.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (activityId, sportType). The description mentions 'one completed COROS activity' which implicitly suggests activityId identifies the activity, but it does not explain sportType or how it affects the query. No parameter-level guidance is provided, making this a significant gap.
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 ('Read') and identifies the resource precisely: detailed metrics, laps, and zones for one completed COROS activity. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workout_details (likely for workouts, not activities) and analyze_completed_activity (which implies analysis rather than raw read).
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 states the tool's purpose and scope ('one completed COROS activity') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough to infer usage for retrieving detailed activity data, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.