LiftTrack

get_activity_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one completed activity in full by its activity_id. Strength returns every exercise with the sets performed and the sets prescribed, weights in the user's unit. Runs and rides return distance, time, pace or speed, elevation, heart rate with minutes in each of the user's zones, effort (zone load, hard and easy minutes, Garmin training effect, the user's RPE), every lap, and running dynamics or cycling power when recorded, in the user's units.

Args: activity_id: The activity's id from the activity overview.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`activity_id`	Yes	The activity_id from the activity overview.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`minutes`	No	Session length; moving time for runs and rides.
`days_ago`	No	Local calendar days between local_date and today (0 = today). Present with local_date.
`endurance`	No	Runs and rides only.
`exercises`	No	Strength only.
`local_date`	No	The calendar date (YYYY-MM-DD) of the activity in the user's local timezone. Present only when the client reported a timezone; quote it rather than converting started_at.
`started_at`	No	The instant the activity started, as an ISO 8601 UTC timestamp.
`activity_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results vary by activity type (strength vs run/ride), values are normalized to the user's units and HR zones, and optional fields like running dynamics or cycling power appear only when recorded. It says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown or incomplete activity id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a scannable enumeration of returned content; nothing is padded with filler. The second sentence is long and partly duplicates what the output schema already defines, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema defining the return structure, the description supplies what the agent still needs: it is a single-activity full-detail read keyed on an id from the overview, with content varying by activity type. Only error/edge-case handling is left unaddressed, which is minor here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the description's note about the id coming "from the activity overview" merely restates the schema's own description. No additional semantics (format, validation, what happens with a foreign or deleted id) are contributed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get one completed activity in full by its activity_id" names a specific verb and resource plus the scope (single, completed, full detail), which cleanly separates it from list-style siblings like get_activities and from other *_detail tools for programs/workouts. The second sentence extends the purpose by spelling out what "full" means per activity type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for use: you call it with an id taken from the activity overview, implying a list-then-detail workflow. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer the overview tool instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All LiftTrack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?