get_activityRetrieve a single Garmin activity by ID with summary, laps or splits, and optionally the structured workout, to review performance details.
One activity in full: summary, laps or splits where available, and with include_workouts the structured workout it followed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes | The activityId from list_activities. | |
| include_workouts | No | Also fetch the structured workout, if any. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral detail like conditional availability ('laps or splits where available') and the side effect of include_workouts, but says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid activity IDs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('one activity in full') comes first and the optional-workout condition is appended compactly. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully signals the return shape (summary, laps/splits, workout), and the 2-parameter schema is fully documented. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including the activity_id cross-reference to list_activities. The description's mention of include_workouts only restates the schema's 'Also fetch the structured workout, if any' in slightly different words, so baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific resource (one activity) and explicitly enumerates what is returned: summary, laps/splits where available, and optionally the structured workout. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_activities, though it never names that sibling directly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'One activity in full' hints that this is the detail counterpart to a list call, and the include_workouts clause implies when to enable it. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.