Retrieve completed COROS activities within a date range, including duration, distance, heart rate, training load, power, and elevation.
List completed COROS activities with duration, distance, heart rate, training load, power and elevation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| endDate | Yes | ||
| startDate | 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 the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description's added value is limited to scoping to 'completed' activities and listing included fields. It does not disclose pagination behavior, date handling, or authentication expectations, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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, dense sentence with no filler. The core resource is stated first, and every phrase adds relevant detail about scope or returned fields.
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?
As a simple list operation with read-only annotations, the description communicates the essential purpose and output fields. However, with no output schema and no pagination or date-format details, an agent still needs to infer important invocation details from parameter names alone.
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%, and the description does not explain startDate/endDate formats, page semantics, or size limits. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the absence of date-format guidance and the failure to compensate for the schema gap leaves meaningful ambiguity for correct invocation.
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 ('List') and resource ('completed COROS activities'), and enumerates the returned metrics (duration, distance, heart rate, training load, power, elevation). This clearly distinguishes it from scheduled-workout or creation tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives.
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 this is the tool for browsing completed activity history, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over list_workouts, list_scheduled_workouts, get_activity_detail, or the analysis tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.