Reports last Apple Watch workout sync status: sync time, Watch contents, queued workouts waiting for WorkoutKit slots, and errors. Use it to confirm plans reached the wrist and diagnose scheduling issues.
What HoodaRun last reported: when it synced, what's on the Watch, what's waiting for a free slot (WorkoutKit caps scheduled workouts), and errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (sync time, Watch contents, pending queue due to WorkoutKit caps, errors) which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects or authentication requirements.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the key return values. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a good summary of what the tool reports. It covers the main data points (sync time, Watch contents, pending items, errors) which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. Minor gaps like return format are acceptable.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by describing the return contents instead.
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 as a status reporter: 'What HoodaRun last reported' and lists the specific data returned (sync time, Watch contents, pending items, errors). It doesn't use a direct verb like 'Get' and doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are stated. However, the context of siblings (all action tools) and the description's focus on reporting imply this is the tool to check sync state. Usage is implied but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.