Garmin MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upload_workouts

Upload multiple Garmin workouts in a single call using JSON data, specifying step types and heart rate or power zone targets.

Instructions

Upload multiple workouts from JSON data in a single call

Creates multiple new workouts in Garmin Connect. Each item in the list uses the same structure as upload_workout.

IMPORTANT: Step types must use Garmin's DTO format:

Use "ExecutableStepDTO" for regular steps (warmup, interval, cooldown, recovery)
Use "RepeatGroupDTO" for repeat/interval groups with numberOfIterations. Always include endCondition with conditionTypeId 7 and conditionTypeKey "iterations"; omitting conditionTypeId causes the API to silently corrupt the repeat count.

IMPORTANT: For named heart rate zone targets, use "zoneNumber" (1-5), NOT targetValueOne/targetValueTwo. For custom heart-rate ranges, use targetType {"workoutTargetTypeId": 4, "workoutTargetTypeKey": "heart.rate.zone"} with targetValueOne/targetValueTwo. Target values belong on the workout step, alongside targetType, not inside it. For cycling power zone targets (zone-based), use workoutTargetTypeId 2, key "power.zone". For cycling absolute watt range targets, use workoutTargetTypeId 6, key "power.between", with targetValueOne (low watts) and targetValueTwo (high watts). Target type IDs and keys must match Garmin's canonical mapping.

IMPORTANT: End condition IDs and keys must match Garmin's canonical mapping. Garmin treats conditionTypeId as authoritative, so mismatches are rejected before upload.

Args: workouts: List of workout dictionaries, each containing workout structure (name, sport type, segments, etc.) — same format as upload_workout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workouts`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It clearly indicates mutation by creating workouts, and it adds meaningful warnings about silent repeat-count corruption and pre-upload rejection when end condition IDs are mismatched. It does not cover partial-failure behavior, batch atomicity, or rate limits, but it goes beyond a basic mutation statement.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy, but the density of Garmin-specific DTO constraints justifies the length. It is well-structured with an opening purpose statement and visually separated IMPORTANT sections, though there is some repetition around canonical mappings and target type IDs.

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?

Given one opaque parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description focuses appropriately on input encoding and covers critical formatting pitfalls. It delegates the full top-level workout structure to upload_workout and does not mention batch size limits or atomicity, but it is largely complete for the stated use case.

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?

The input schema only provides a generic array of objects with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that each item is a workout dictionary with the same structure as upload_workout, and it provides detailed, non-obvious semantics for step DTOs, repeat groups, end conditions, heart-rate targets, and power-zone targets. This adds substantial meaning that the schema entirely lacks.

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 clearly states that this tool uploads multiple workouts from JSON in a single call and creates multiple new workouts in Garmin Connect. It also distinguishes itself from the singular upload_workout sibling by describing the batch behavior and referencing the same item structure.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the batch use case explicit ('multiple workouts from JSON data in a single call') and points to upload_workout as the format reference. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer schedule_workouts or delete_workouts, but the intended context is clear.

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

Deploy Server