Garmin Coach MCP

get_weekly_volume

Fetch weekly training volume totals for a specific ISO week and year, with optional activity type filtering and trend comparison to the previous week.

Instructions

Get weekly training volume aggregation for a specific week

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_weekly_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`week`	No	ISO week number (defaults to current week)
`year`	No	Year (defaults to current year)
`activityTypes`	No	Filter by specific activity types (e.g., ['running', 'cycling'])
`includeTrends`	No	Include comparison with previous week (default: false)
`maxActivities`	No	Maximum number of activities to process (default: 1000)
`includeActivityBreakdown`	No	Include breakdown by activity type (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, authentication requirements, or processing limits. The tool's behavior (e.g., aggregation method) is unclear.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundancy, though it could be slightly more specific without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the aggregation returns (e.g., total distance, duration, count) or how parameters like 'includeTrends' affect output.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described inline. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or how 'maxActivities' affects volume calculation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves weekly training volume aggregation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activities (individual activities) or get_daily_overview (daily data). The term 'volume aggregation' is unambiguous in context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_activities for raw data, get_daily_overview for daily summaries). The description lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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