Retrieves Garmin training status plus acute and chronic load, load focus, VO2max, and fitness age for a chosen day to summarize current fitness and training readiness.
Training status, acute/chronic load, load focus, VO2max and fitness age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | YYYY-MM-DD; defaults to today | |
| raw | No | Return Garmin's full JSON instead of a summary |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds some behavioral value by enumerating the metrics returned, but it does not mention the raw JSON mode, the day-based snapshot behavior, or any caveats around data availability.
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 a single compact sentence with no redundant filler, and the metric list is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is a fragment rather than a fully structured explanation.
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 need not be explained in detail, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, the description omits when to choose this tool over get_training_readiness and does not clarify the day-scoped nature of the status, leaving meaningful context gaps for an agent selecting among many health endpoints.
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 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema as a date input defaulting to today and a raw boolean returning Garmin JSON. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 listing returned metrics rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does. It identifies the resource as training status and enumerates acute/chronic load, load focus, VO2max, and fitness age, so the purpose is inferable, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings like get_training_readiness.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to choose instead. The agent must infer that this is a daily training-status retrieval tool from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.