Retrieve weather conditions recorded for a specific Garmin activity by providing its activity ID. Get temperature, wind, and precipitation data captured during your workout.
Weather recorded during an activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral detail beyond those structured hints. It does not mention what happens when weather data is unavailable, whether the activity must already exist, or any other runtime behavior.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It front-loads the subject but omits the action and contextual guidance that would make the sentence informative.
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?
Although an output schema exists and can describe return values, the description fails to explain the relationship between activity_id and the weather data or when an agent should call this tool. For a single-parameter read-only tool, a bit more context is still expected.
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%, leaving the description to compensate. The phrase 'during an activity' only weakly suggests that activity_id refers to a Garmin activity, but it does not specify the expected format, source, or any constraints beyond the schema's required marker.
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 is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name ('Weather recorded during an activity'), lacking an explicit verb indicating whether the tool retrieves, returns, or records weather. It does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like garmin_activity or garmin_activity_splits beyond the subject matter.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as garmin_activity, garmin_activities_by_date, or garmin_activity_splits. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are stated, so an agent must guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.