Garmin MCP Server

by JJRPF

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

remove_gear_from_activity

Remove gear association from an activity by supplying the activity ID and gear UUID to unlink them.

Instructions

Remove gear association from an activity

Unlinks a specific piece of gear from an activity.

Args: activity_id: ID of the activity gear_uuid: UUID of the gear to remove

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": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>",
      "gear_uuid": "<gear_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "remove_gear_from_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gear_uuid`	Yes
`activity_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the operation unlinks rather than deletes gear, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or whether the gear must already be associated with the activity.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are largely redundant ('Remove gear association' vs 'Unlinks a specific piece of gear'). The Args section is useful and compact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details such as prerequisites or failure modes, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains activity_id as the activity's ID and gear_uuid as the UUID of the gear to remove, adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. It could further specify where to obtain these values, but it is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'/'Unlinks') and a clear resource ('gear association from an activity'), making the operation unambiguous. It is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like add_gear_to_activity and get_activity_gear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied by the action ('unlink gear from an activity'), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as add_gear_to_activity or get_activity_gear. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

Deploy Server