Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Running Companion MCP Server

Running Companion MCP Server

by Dtsiakas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid
This server has been deprecated

Personal project, not offered for public use.

Describe data

describe_data
Read-only

Returns table schemas, units, derived metric calculations, heart-rate thresholds, and known caveats to review before writing SQL for Garmin running and health data.

Instructions

Schema of every table, units, how each derived metric is calculated, the HR thresholds in use and known caveats. Read before writing SQL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "describe_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: this returns static documentation including caveats and threshold conventions, which tells the agent the content is authoritative configuration, not live data.

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?

One telegraphic sentence plus a two-word imperative. The content list is front-loaded and the action directive is last, with zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, closed-world reference tool with no output schema, the description covers what the content includes well enough to call it. It does not hint at output size or shape, but with readOnly/closed-world annotations that omission is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly describes no inputs. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; nothing about inputs needs explaining.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates concrete content: table schemas, units, derivation logic for derived metrics, in-use HR thresholds, and caveats. That is specific enough for an agent to know this is a reference/metadata tool rather than a data-fetching one, though it never names the sibling (query) it complements.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Read before writing SQL" supplies an explicit trigger condition and implicitly points at the SQL-executing sibling. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'not needed for non-SQL calls') but the when-to-use signal is unambiguous.

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