garminconnect-js

get_daily_steps

Read-only

Fetch daily step totals for a start and end date from Garmin Connect, with automatic chunking for ranges over 28 days.

Instructions

Daily step totals over a date range; ranges over 28 days are fetched in chunks. Auto-chunks ranges over Garmin's 28-day-per-request limit into ≤28-day windows and concatenates; a single request within the limit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "get_daily_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	Yes	Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC)
`start`	Yes	Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful operational context about 28-day chunking and concatenation, which the annotations cannot convey, but it says nothing about granularity, return shape, or empty ranges.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence largely restates the first: 'ranges over 28 days are fetched in chunks' and 'Auto-chunks ranges over Garmin's 28-day-per-request limit into ≤28-day windows and concatenates' convey the same fact twice.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, and the chunking disclosure is a meaningful addition. It only falls short on describing what a daily total record contains or how missing days are handled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented as YYYY-MM-DD UTC dates, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: daily step totals over a date range. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_steps_data or get_weekly_steps, leaving the agent to infer which step-retrieval tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite multiple step-related siblings. The date-range framing only weakly implies usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server