Retrieve Garmin Connect course details using a numeric or string course ID. A missing ID returns a 404 Course not found error.
GETs /course-service/course/{courseId}; a missing id is a 404 GarminHttpError ("Course not found : {id}")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | Numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a missing id yields a 404 GarminHttpError with the exact message format 'Course not found : {id}'. That error contract is useful for an agent to reason about failure handling.
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 compact clause with the endpoint and the failure mode, front-loaded and free of filler. The raw-path phrasing is terse rather than wasteful, though slightly opaque to a reader unfamiliar with the service.
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, and the description says nothing about what a returned course contains, so an agent cannot anticipate the response payload. Combined with the absent usage guidance, the definition is adequate for invocation but not complete for a 1-param fetch tool with no declared output.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented as 'Numeric id'. The description adds only the path-placement of that id and the error when it is missing, which the schema does not cover. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (GET) and resource (course by {courseId}), so an agent immediately knows it fetches a single course rather than a list. However, it leans on the raw endpoint path rather than naming its siblings (list_courses, download_course_gpx, get_workout_by_id), so the differentiation is implicit rather than 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 at all. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over list_courses for enumeration or download_course_gpx for GPX export, and no precondition beyond the required id is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.