Garmin MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_progress_summary_between_dates

Retrieve progress summaries for any metric over a date range, providing clear insight into fitness gains between two dates.

Instructions

Get progress summary for a metric between dates

Args: start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format metric: Metric to get progress for (e.g., "elevationGain", "duration", "distance", "movingDuration")

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": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>",
      "metric": "<metric>"
    },
    "name": "get_progress_summary_between_dates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`metric`	Yes
`end_date`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, or required permissions. The user is left without information about the tool's behavior beyond its apparent purpose.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured, leading with the primary purpose in the first sentence and clarifying parameters in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple getter, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. Since an output schema exists, the return value does not need to be explained. Minor caveats like possible empty results are not mentioned but are not critical.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning to all three parameters (start_date, end_date, metric) by specifying formats and giving an example for metric. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could be more explicit about valid metric values.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('progress summary') with a specific scope ('between dates' for a given metric). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the many other getter tools in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contrast with similar getters like 'get_stats' or 'get_goals'.

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

Deploy Server