Retrieve Garmin Connect account settings and preferences to check configuration before adjusting training, device, or app behavior.
Cached per instance, same eviction-on-failure pattern as getUserProfile().
| 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them (per-instance caching with eviction-on-failure, meaning repeated calls may serve stale data and a failed call clears the cache), but it omits return shape and scope of the settings themselves.
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 a single short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise and is front-loaded with an implementation detail instead of the tool's purpose.
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 telling the agent what this returns and how it differs from get_user_profile, get_userprofile_settings, and get_device_settings. It does none of that, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from sibling getters.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 does or what settings it returns; it only describes an internal caching trait. It relies entirely on the name 'get_user_settings' plus the annotation title to convey purpose, which is a restatement rather than an explanation.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given, despite close siblings like get_user_profile, get_userprofile_settings, and get_device_settings that an agent must choose between. The caching note does not help select the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.