Retrieve all badges currently available to earn in Garmin Connect, including exclusive badges, to track new challenges and rewards.
GETs /badge-service/badge/available?showExclusiveBadge=true; same badgeImageUrls as getEarnedBadges; stays nullable
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are covered. The description adds two non-obvious facts the annotations do not: the endpoint is always called with showExclusiveBadge=true, and the badgeImageUrls field is nullable. It omits auth requirements, pagination, and any notion of result size, which keeps it at a moderate level.
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 short and contains no filler, but the semicolon-separated fragment style is cryptic rather than front-loaded, and 'stays nullable' does not clearly identify what remains nullable. Compactness here reflects under-specification as much as economy.
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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it only partially does so via the badgeImageUrls parity note and nullability remark. For a no-param read tool that is minimally acceptable, but the agent still cannot tell what the payload contains overall or how it differs from other badge endpoints.
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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion beyond noting the fixed query string baked into the call.
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 raw path `/badge-service/badge/available` implies retrieving available badges, and the hardcoded `showExclusiveBadge=true` hints at scope. However, it never states the purpose in plain language and does not distinguish itself from close siblings like `getEarnedBadges`, `get_in_progress_badges`, or `get_badge_detail`, so the agent must infer the difference from names alone.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The only sibling reference, `getEarnedBadges`, is cited solely to explain a shared response field name, not to help the agent choose between the two tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.