Retrieve scheduled workout IDs and their linked workout IDs for a date range of up to 31 days to review Garmin Connect workout schedules.
List workout schedule IDs and associated workout IDs in a range of up to 31 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context in the 31-day maximum range, but it does not say what happens when the range is exceeded (error vs. truncation) or how results are ordered.
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; every clause (schedule IDs, workout IDs, 31-day cap) carries information an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose main risk is the range limit, the definition omits the over-limit behavior and any differentiation from list_workouts, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden. It does clarify that the two date parameters define a bounded range capped at 31 days, but adds nothing about date format, inclusivity of endpoints, or timezone handling beyond the schema's 'format: date'.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('List workout schedule IDs and associated workout IDs'), which is clearly narrower than the sibling list_workouts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_workouts or preview_workout, so an agent must infer the distinction from the entity names alone.
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?
The only usage constraint given is the 31-day range cap; there is no statement of when to choose this over list_workouts or preview_workout, nor any stated precondition for the date inputs. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.