Retrieve your most recent Garmin activities, sorted newest first, with optional filters for activity type and result limits.
Most recent activities, newest first. activity_type filters e.g. running, cycling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| activity_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering context ('newest first') and filter behavior, but it does not clarify pagination semantics or what happens with a null activity_type. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the core behavior ('Most recent activities, newest first') and then adding the filter detail. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase contributes meaningful 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?
For a tool with only 3 simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation but omits sibling differentiation and pagination behavior. Given the large sibling family, the lack of guidance about when to use this versus activities_by_date or last_activity makes the context incomplete.
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 compensate. It only adds meaning to activity_type with examples ('running, cycling'), while limit and offset are left entirely to their names and defaults. The description does not explain that limit controls page size, offset enables pagination, or that activity_type null means no filtering.
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 identifies the resource as 'activities' and states the ordering 'newest first', which clearly conveys a list of recent activities. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intent is understandable. The plural 'activities' and the filter hint help distinguish it from singular garmin_last_activity, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from garmin_activities_by_date.
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 description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as garmin_last_activity or garmin_activities_by_date. It only says what it returns and mentions activity_type filtering, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.