Replace a workout: uploads a new workout from payload, then deletes workout_id (no native PUT). Returns new workout_id and previous_workout_id.
Bulk support: accepts workout_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| workout | Yes | ||
| workout_id | Yes | ||
| workout_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description says it deletes the old workout, contradicting the destructiveHint=false annotation. This is a serious inconsistency.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core mechanism. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Lacks details on error cases, order of bulk execution, structure of the workout object, and handling of missing workouts. No output schema to supplement.
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?
Clarifies workout_id, workout, and workout_ids, but ignores the 'account' parameter entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover all parameters.
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?
Clearly states it replaces a workout by uploading a new one then deleting the old, with bulk support. Distinguishes from sibling tools like garmin_delete_workout and garmin_get_workout.
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?
Explains when to use (no native PUT) and mentions bulk support, but could better contrast with alternatives like garmin_submit_workout.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The Garmin-specific tools each handle a unique operation on workouts or accounts, and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are separate and easily distinguishable.
The naming is inconsistent: Garmin tools use a consistent 'garmin_verb_noun' pattern, but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) lack any prefix or pattern, creating a mismatch.
With 16 tools, the count is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still justified. The domain of workout management requires several operations, and the platform utilities are essential for the server's operation within the MCP ecosystem.
The Garmin workout tools cover the full lifecycle: create, retrieve, update, delete, plus scheduling. Listing accounts and the platform utilities round out the surface. Minor gaps (e.g., no tool to fetch activities) are acceptable given the server's focus on 'treinos' (workouts).