Get one workout template by workout_id (full structure: segments, steps, targets). Includes raw_data JSON string.
Bulk support: accepts workout_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| workout_id | Yes | ||
| workout_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the response structure (segments, steps, targets) and the inclusion of a raw_data JSON string. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, and the second sentence adds bulk support context.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its bulk capability. It does not specify error handling or authentication needs, but the tool's simplicity makes this 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 description explains the use of workout_id and workout_ids, but fails to mention the account parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate; the omission of account leaves meaning incomplete for this optional parameter.
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 states the tool retrieves a workout template by ID, specifying it returns the full structure including segments, steps, and targets, and mentions bulk support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_list_workouts or garmin_delete_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?
The description provides clear usage context by noting that it can retrieve a single workout via workout_id or multiple via workout_ids for batched execution. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a read tool.
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).