Retrieves a Garmin Connect activity by ID with summary details and optional splits, heart-rate zone time, and weather data to review workout performance.
One activity in detail: summary plus optional laps/splits, time in HR zones, weather.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return Garmin's full JSON instead of a summary | |
| include | No | Extra sections to include | |
| activity_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that extra sections (splits, HR zones, weather) are optional and layered on top of a base summary, which is genuine value, but it says nothing about payload size, the cost of raw=true, or default sections.
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?
A single front-loaded clause that names the resource first and the optional extras second — nothing wasted. It leans toward terse rather than verbose, which is the right trade-off here.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is a simple read with one required param. Still, the description leaves the ID source and the raw-vs-summary trade-off undocumented, which are the two things an agent actually needs to choose correctly.
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?
At 67% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates the include options rather than adding syntax or behavior. It omits any mention of raw mode or where activity_id originates, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: one activity in detail, with the optional add-ons named (laps/splits, HR zone time, weather). This implicitly separates it from the list_activities/get_recent_activities siblings, though it never names them, so an agent has to infer the single-vs-many split.
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?
Usage is implied (fetch detail for one activity) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that activity_id comes from list_activities, and no note on when raw mode is preferable. The agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.