Retrieve Garmin Connect activity type definitions, including IDs, keys, parent types, and visibility flags, to map or filter workouts and activities in your app.
ActivityTypesResponse is ActivityType[] (154 entries observed live: {typeId, typeKey, parentTypeId, isHidden, restricted, trimmable}), an ARRAY, verified live
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact most likely to trip an agent up: the payload is an ARRAY, not a wrapped object, plus the observed size (154) and the exact field names. Since no output schema exists, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive.
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 sentence with no padding, but the emphasis is inverted: the single most decision-relevant fact ('an ARRAY') is placed last and stated redundantly ('154 entries observed live' plus 'verified live'). The purpose should have led the sentence.
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?
For a simple zero-argument getter the description does cover the return contract, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it omits how the returned typeIds relate to other tools (e.g. set_activity_type) and gives no signal about stability or caching of the 154-entry catalog.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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 never states a verb or what the tool does; it only describes the response shape. A reader can infer that it returns the catalog of activity types, but that inference comes from the name, not the description. It is not a pure tautology, since the field list and array shape add real information, but the purpose itself is left implicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from near siblings such as get_activity_event_types or set_activity_type. Nothing tells the agent that this is a static reference catalog useful for resolving a typeId before calling set_activity_type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.