Remove workout from calendar by scheduled_workout_id (does not delete the workout template).
Bulk support: accepts scheduled_workout_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| scheduled_workout_id | Yes | ||
| scheduled_workout_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that unscheduling does not delete the template, aligning with annotations. However, no further behavioral traits like authorization needs or side effects are disclosed.
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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: first explains core action, second notes bulk capability.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and minimal annotations, the description adequately covers the primary action and bulk support but omits details about the account parameter, return behavior, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of scheduled_workout_id and the bulk support via scheduled_workout_ids. However, the account parameter is left undocumented, imposing an information gap.
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 action: 'Remove workout from calendar by scheduled_workout_id' and differentiates it from deleting the workout template, distinguishing it from sibling tool 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?
Provides clear context for what the tool does and does not do (does not delete template), but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like garmin_delete_workout or garmin_schedule_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).