garmin-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_activity_splits

Retrieve split and lap data for a Garmin activity, including per-split pace, distance, elevation, and heart rate, to analyze performance segment by segment.

Instructions

Get split/lap data for a specific activity. Returns per-split pace, distance, elevation, heart rate.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity_splits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`activity_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It clearly identifies this as a read operation and specifies what data is returned, which gives an agent an accurate model of the tool's effect. It does not mention units, missing-split behavior, or ownership constraints, but these are minor for a simple getter.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned data, every sentence earning its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with a rich output schema, this description is mostly complete. It identifies the required input and the key return fields, though it could slightly improve by noting units or typical split granularity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase 'for a specific activity' adds semantic context tying activity_id to the activity whose splits are returned, but it offers no details on ID format, source, or validation. It is minimally adequate for such a self-explanatory parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it fetches split/lap data for a specific activity and enumerates the returned metrics (pace, distance, elevation, heart rate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity_details or the file download tools.

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 description implies this tool is for fetching per-split data for an activity, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose it over get_activity_details or the download_activity_* siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is provided.

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