Convert a GPX file into a Garmin Connect course by providing the file path. Optionally set name, privacy, and activity type.
importCourseGpx then createCourse. Name defaults to the GPX <name>, then the filename without .gpx
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| filePath | Yes | Absolute path to a local .fit, .gpx or .tcx file (~ is expanded) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds the name-resolution fallback chain, but omits mutation details such as what happens if a course name collides, whether the GPX is validated, or auth prerequisites.
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 short fragments with zero padding, and the most decision-relevant content (the underlying composition) leads. However the telegraphic style leans on the reader recognizing the API method names, so it is terse at some cost to readability.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the return value (presumably the created course, or its id) is never mentioned, which matters for a composite write operation. The tool name says 'from_gpx' while the schema accepts .fit and .tcx as well, and that discrepancy is left unexplained.
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?
The schema documents filePath (absolute .fit/.gpx/.tcx path, ~ expanded) and the key options at 50% coverage. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by specifying the default name fallback (GPX <name>, then filename minus .gpx), which the options.name field does not state.
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 maps the tool to its two underlying API calls ('importCourseGpx then createCourse'), which implies course creation from a GPX file but never states the purpose in plain terms. An agent must know the underlying method semantics to be confident. Siblings (import_course_gpx, create_course) are not differentiated. The naming default is the only explicit behavior stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance. With both import_course_gpx and create_course available as separate siblings, the agent is not told why it would choose this composite over calling those two steps itself, nor when it should not be used. The composition is implied but never framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.