Retrieves settings and configuration for a specific Garmin device using its numeric deviceId, so you can inspect device preferences.
deviceId coerced to an int, validated positive, re-stringified before being placed in the path Two-call sequence: get a deviceId from a getDevices() entry first, then pass it here
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | Numeric id |
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the id is coerced to an int, validated positive, and re-stringified into the path, which is useful input-handling behavior, but it says nothing about what settings are returned or any auth/rate considerations.
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?
Two short sentences, but the first is a fragment of unstated purpose and internal processing detail rather than being front-loaded with what the tool does. The second sentence carries the useful routing information; the rest is verbose for the value delivered.
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 and no statement of what the tool returns, an agent cannot tell what a device's settings include versus sibling endpoints. The purpose is missing entirely, and the description only covers how to supply the id.
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 already 100%, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: that an integer or string is accepted, coerced to int, validated positive, and re-stringified into the path. That tells the agent the parameter is tolerant and path-bound, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 what the tool retrieves. It describes input coercion and a call sequence, but the actual resource (device settings) is only inferable from the tool name, making this effectively a restatement rather than a definition of purpose.
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?
It gives one concrete usage rule: obtain a `deviceId` from a `getDevices()` entry before calling. That prerequisite is genuinely useful, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like `get_devices` or `get_device_last_used`, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.