Skip to main content
Glama

set_activity_type

Change a Garmin Connect activity's type using its activity ID and type identifiers; returns null on success.

Instructions

Changes an activity's type. Resolves to null on success.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "activityId": "<activityId>",
      "typeId": "<typeId>",
      "typeKey": "<typeKey>",
      "parentTypeId": "<parentTypeId>"
    },
    "name": "set_activity_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeIdYes
typeKeyYes
activityIdYesNumeric id
parentTypeIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safe profile is covered. The description adds a useful non-schema detail ('Resolves to null on success'), but omits what happens on failure, and says nothing about the openWorldHint=true external lookup implied by typeId/typeKey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mutation is stated first. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is the only content-bearing addition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-required-param mutation with no output schema and thin schema documentation, the description is too sparse. It never explains the required type identifiers or the fact that all four arguments must be supplied, leaving the agent to infer the whole call shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Four required parameters at only 25% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain the relationship or precedence between typeId, typeKey, and parentTypeId, which is the most ambiguous part of this call and the thing the description should compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes an activity's type'), so the agent knows it mutates an activity's classification. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling set_activity_event_type, nor clarify how 'type' differs from 'event type'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is given. Given siblings like set_activity_event_type and the get_activity_types lookup tool, the description should state which tool to pick and whether a type lookup is expected first, but it offers nothing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools