Retrieve the exercise sets for a strength activity using its activity ID. Use it to review set-by-set strength training data from Garmin Connect.
A strength activity's exercise sets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activityId | Yes | Numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral beyond them: no indication of what happens for a non-strength activity, whether an empty result is possible, or whether data is paginated. For a read against user data, that is a meaningful gap even with the lower annotation-adjusted bar.
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?
It is a single short phrase with zero filler and the resource is front-loaded, so nothing wastes the agent's attention. Its brevity, however, is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what comes back (set count, reps, weights, ordering) and it does not. It also omits the strength-activity precondition that governs whether the call is meaningful, leaving the definition short of what an agent needs to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents activityId ('Numeric id'), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the id refers to a strength activity; it gives no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond that.
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 fragment 'A strength activity's exercise sets' names the resource and its domain (strength activities) but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read that returns the sets recorded for a given activity. It is distinguishable from the sibling set_activity_exercise_sets only by the set_/get_ prefix, not by the text itself.
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, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the activityId must belong to a strength activity), and no mention of alternatives such as get_activity_details or set_activity_exercise_sets. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.