Retrieve the default gear assigned to each activity type for a Garmin Connect user. Use it to identify which gear is automatically linked to specific activities.
GETs /gear-service/gear/user/{userProfileNumber}/activityTypes; returns an ARRAY of {uuid, activityTypePk, defaultGear} entries, verified live
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userProfileNumber | Yes |
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 the return-array structure (valuable since there is no output schema) and the 'verified live' note, but discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.
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 with no filler, and the endpoint (the primary identifying information) is front-loaded. It is compact though slightly cryptic in its raw-API phrasing.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation already provided, the description gives the return shape but omits the origin/meaning of userProfileNumber and any permission context. It is minimally viable but leaves real gaps for a 1-param tool.
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 the description must carry the burden. It partially compensates by embedding {userProfileNumber} in the path template, signaling it is the user profile path parameter, but it never explains the integer/string flexibility or where to obtain the value.
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 the underlying resource (gear user activity types) and specifies the return shape (an array of {uuid, activityTypePk, defaultGear}), so an agent can infer it retrieves default gear settings per activity type. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_gear, get_gear_activities, and set_gear_activity_defaults, and it is framed as a raw HTTP endpoint rather than a task-oriented statement.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent has to infer from the name and endpoint whether this is the right call versus get_gear or set_gear_activity_defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.