garminconnect-js

create_course_from_gpx

Import a GPX, FIT, or TCX file and create a Garmin course in one call, naming it from the file and setting privacy and activity type.

Instructions

importCourseGpx then createCourse, in one call. Name defaults to the GPX <name>, then the filename without .gpx.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "create_course_from_gpx"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`options`	No
`filePath`	Yes	Absolute path to a local .fit, .gpx or .tcx file (~ is expanded)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining the name-resolution fallback order, but says nothing about what gets created, permissions, or failure modes.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the naming detail. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic.

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 mutating, open-world tool with a nested options object and no output schema, the description covers the naming fallback but leaves the other option fields and the result unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the name-defaulting fallback (GPX `<name>`, then filename without `.gpx`), which the schema omits, but stays silent on the options object fields (privacy, activityTypeId) that the agent must pass.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The tool name and description together convey that a course is created from a GPX file by combining import and create steps. However, the description leans on internal camelCase function names (`importCourseGpx`, `createCourse`) that do not match the actual sibling tool names (import_course_gpx, create_course), so the purpose is inferable but not stated as a clean verb+resource.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'In one call' implicitly positions this as the shortcut over calling import and create separately, which hints at when to prefer it. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools — the guidance is only implied.

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

Deploy Server