Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Coros MCP Server

Coros MCP Server

by Dhivakarkd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

get_activity_file_url

Retrieve a download URL for a Coros activity file in FIT, TCX, or GPX format using the activity label ID and sport type.

Instructions

Get the download URL for a specific activity file (FIT, TCX, or GPX format)

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": {
      "labelId": "<labelId>",
      "sportType": "<sportType>",
      "fileType": "<fileType>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity_file_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelIdYesThe activity label ID
fileTypeYesFile type: fit, tcx, or gpx
sportTypeYesThe sport type number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose essential behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, or error states (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist). It implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm safety.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose but omits details about the return value format (e.g., whether the URL is temporary or direct). It is minimally complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating file type formats. It provides no additional semantics for labelId or sportType beyond what the schema already describes.

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?

The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (download URL for a specific activity file), and specifies the supported formats (FIT, TCX, GPX). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like login or get_recent_activities.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply describes what it does without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools