Fetch the single most recent Garmin Connect activity, returning null when none exist. Use it to check the last logged workout without downloading the full activity list.
delegates to getActivities(0, 1), returns the last element or null
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns `null` when no element exists, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or any other traits beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is very short, but the single sentence spends space on internal delegation rather than front-loading the user-facing purpose. It is concise but not well structured for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what "last element" means (e.g., the most recent activity) and the return value shape. It only says it returns an element or null, leaving ambiguity about what object is returned and how "last" is determined.
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 and the schema is fully covered (100%), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter information; baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 is essentially an implementation note ("delegates to `getActivities(0, 1)`") rather than a clear statement of purpose. It implies returning the last activity but never explicitly names the resource or distinguishes itself from sibling `get_activities`. An agent can infer the purpose from the tool name, but the description itself is vague.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_activities` or `get_activity`. The delegation detail is an implementation fact, not usage guidance. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.