garmin-mcp

get_steps_timeline

Retrieve a day's step count in 15-minute intervals with activity levels per bucket. Specify a date in YYYY-MM-DD format to analyze your daily movement patterns.

Instructions

Steps in 15-minute buckets across the day, with activity level per bucket.

Args: date: Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_steps_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Compacted Garmin payload; null if unavailable.
`note`	No	Explains missing data or truncation.
`params`	No	Parameters used.
`source`	Yes	Garmin Connect API method the data came from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully conveys the 15-minute bucketing and activity-level output, but it does not mention timezone handling, whether missing buckets are omitted or zero, or other non-obvious data behavior.

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 plus an Args block. The main behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information without filler or repetition.

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 an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the parameter format/default and the result granularity. It falls short only in lacking any distinction from closely related step tools and not addressing timezone/local-date semantics.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the only parameter. It does: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format and the 'defaults to today' behavior, which is not apparent from the schema's default null.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns steps in 15-minute buckets with activity level per bucket. This is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_steps_and_calories or get_daily_steps_range.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or refer to sibling tools, so an agent gets no help choosing between the many similar get_* timeline/step tools.

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

Deploy Server