Retrieve detailed structure of a specific Garmin workout, including steps, targets, and duration, by workout ID.
Get detailed information for a specific workout including steps, targets, and duration. Returns the complete workout structure with formatted step information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workoutId | Yes | The workout ID to retrieve details for (from create_running_workout or get_scheduled_workouts response) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description implies a read operation but adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns 'complete workout structure'. It does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a simple retrieval tool this is adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately specify return content. No extraneous words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the returned data. It could mention error handling or existence guarantees, but the current level is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval.
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 the parameter description provides context by linking to other tools. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific workout, listing steps, targets, and duration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_activities' or 'get_daily_overview' by focusing on a single workout's structure.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_scheduled_workouts' or 'get_activity_details'. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.