garmin_list_workoutsList saved Garmin workouts, newest first, with an optional limit to control the result count. Use this to retrieve your training plans and scheduled workouts directly from your account.
List the workouts saved on the Garmin account, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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 communicate read-only safety and open-world behavior. The description adds one behavioral trait — newest-first ordering — but discloses nothing about pagination, rate limits, or how broad the 'saved workouts' scope is. This is a reasonable baseline with annotations present.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and it includes a useful ordering detail. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema fields.
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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the core operation and ordering. The output schema handles return-value details, and annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not explaining how the optional limit affects result count or pagination.
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?
The input schema exposes one optional 'limit' parameter with a default of 25, but the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, and it does not. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the gap remains.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('workouts saved on the Garmin account'), and an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). The qualifying word 'saved' distinguishes this from sibling tools like garmin_scheduled_workouts or garmin_create_workout without requiring the agent to open schemas.
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 intended use is implied: list saved workouts rather than create, schedule, or delete them. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for when to prefer this tool over garmin_scheduled_workouts or garmin_activities. This is adequate but not explicitly guiding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.