List saved workouts from Garmin Connect (workout-service). Returns summaries plus raw_data (full JSON string from Garmin).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds modest value by mentioning raw_data return. No additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness) beyond 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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded: the first states the core action and source, the second adds key detail about return format. No wasted words.
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?
With three parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. Missing pagination context, account significance, and output structure beyond 'summaries plus raw_data'.
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 any parameters (limit, start, account). It fails to add meaning beyond the property names and types, leaving the agent to guess semantics.
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 it lists saved workouts from Garmin Connect and returns summaries plus raw_data. This specifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_get_scheduled_workout or filtering options. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
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).