Retrieve Garmin Connect workouts with start and limit pagination. Returns null if no workouts match instead of an empty list.
defaults start=0, limit=100, stays nullable (does NOT coalesce to [])
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds useful behavioral detail: default start and limit values and the fact that the result stays nullable rather than being coalesced to an empty array. This goes beyond the safety profile supplied by 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 short and avoids padding, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured definition. It front-loads parameter defaults while omitting basic framing about what is being returned.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema and many similar siblings, the description should establish purpose, scope, and when to use it. Instead it covers only pagination defaults and null behavior, leaving major gaps.
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 parameter meaning. It supplies defaults for both parameters (start=0, limit=100), which is valuable, though it still does not explain what start and limit represent semantically.
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. It only documents pagination defaults and null handling, leaving the actual purpose ('get workouts') to be inferred entirely from the tool name.
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 get_workouts versus siblings such as get_workout_by_id, get_scheduled_workouts, or get_activities. The description contains no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.