Retrieve historical ad hoc challenges from Garmin Connect by specifying a non-negative start and positive limit; returns an array of challenge records.
GETs /adhocchallenge-service/adHocChallenge/historical; start validated non-negative, limit validated positive (throws GarminError otherwise); returns an ARRAY, verified live
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: specific validation rules (start non-negative, limit positive) and the fact that violating them throws GarminError, plus confirmation the call returns an ARRAY rather than an object. These are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures an agent can act on.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the endpoint and follows with validation and return-type facts. It is compact with little waste, though the raw endpoint path is borderline noise for an agent that never sees URLs.
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 two-parameter GET read with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the description covers validation and return shape adequately. It still omits what the returned challenges represent and the meaning of the pagination-style parameters, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 0%, so both parameters rest entirely on the description. It supplies validation constraints (start non-negative, limit positive) which the schema lacks, but never explains what start/limit actually mean — offset vs. index vs. count — so the semantic meaning of the values remains ambiguous.
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 names a verb (GETs) and the raw endpoint path for historical ad hoc challenges, so the basic resource is identifiable. However, it never explains what an 'adhoc challenge' is or how it relates to the many sibling challenge tools (get_badge_challenges, get_inprogress_virtual_challenges, get_earned_badges), leaving an agent unable to distinguish it semantically from its siblings.
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 and no mention of alternatives among the numerous challenge-related sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage 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.