Retrieve personal records for running and other activities, including fastest 1K, 5K, 10K and longest run, from your Garmin Connect data.
Personal records across activity types (fastest 1K/5K/10K, longest run, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| records | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must stand alone. It indicates the return is personal records across activity types, but does not disclose if records are all-time, how they are computed, or any limitations (e.g., real-time vs cached). Adequate but not detailed.
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?
Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (documenting return structure), and the description provides concrete examples. For a simple data retrieval, this is sufficient. Could mention whether records are per user or global, but not critical.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by listing examples of records returned. Per guidance, baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets that.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves personal records across activity types, with specific examples (1K/5K/10K, longest run). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with sleep, HRV, activities, etc.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are diverse (sleep, HRV, activities) so there is no direct overlap, but the description does not explicitly exclude any context or mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.