Fetch Garmin power zone profiles to see configured power training zones and thresholds for cycling or running workouts.
Power zone profiles.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_power_zones"
}
}| 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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what the profile contains, whether it depends on user FTP settings, or whether it returns all sports or a default zone set.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment rather than a usable sentence, and the brevity comes at the cost of specifiability rather than by eliminating filler. It is minimal, not efficient.
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 parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the caller gets back. It does not say whether the response is a single default profile or a set keyed by sport, nor how it relates to get_power_zones_for_sport, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.
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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add on the parameter side, and schema coverage is 100%.
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 a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name: 'get_power_zones' → 'Power zone profiles.' There is no verb, no statement of what is retrieved or from which resource scope, and no differentiation from the obvious sibling get_power_zones_for_sport. It borders on tautology.
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, and critically no mention of get_power_zones_for_sport, which is the natural alternative given the near-identical name. The agent must guess which of the two power-zone tools applies to its request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.