Polar MCP

Polar Route

polar_get_route

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load a Polar route by route ID returned by calendar or training records to retrieve GPS details with privacy redaction.

Instructions

Load a Polar route by route id. Routes are GPS-sensitive; default privacy modes redact coordinates. Requires routes:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`route_id`	Yes	Polar route id returned by a calendar or training-session record.
`privacy_mode`	No	Optional per-call privacy override. Defaults to POLAR_PRIVACY_MODE or structured. raw returns upstream Polar JSON. summary removes GPS/map details.
`response_format`	No		markdown
`explicit_user_intent`	No	Required true when privacy_mode=raw or include_gps=true (agent escalation of redaction).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes
`privacy_mode`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.4Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / explicit_user_intent

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required true when privacy_mode=raw or include_gps=true (agent escalation of redaction).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / privacy_mode / description

Previous value: -"Optional per-call privacy override. Defaults to POLAR_PRIVACY_MODE or structured. raw returns upstream Polar JSON. summary minimizes sensitive health and profile details."New value: +"Optional per-call privacy override. Defaults to POLAR_PRIVACY_MODE or structured. raw returns upstream Polar JSON. summary removes GPS/map details."

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.3.6Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics. The description adds two important operational facts beyond annotations: route data is GPS-sensitive and default privacy modes redact coordinates, plus the required auth scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most important caveats (GPS/privacy, auth). No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only getter with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the key call prerequisites and privacy behavior. It omits usage alternatives and response_format guidance, but those are lower priority given schema coverage and the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces route_id and default privacy redaction, but adds little detail for privacy_mode, response_format, or explicit_user_intent beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('Polar route') scoped by route id, distinguishing it from the many list_* siblings. It does not explicitly compare against an alternative, but for a get-by-id tool the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the required scope ('Requires routes:read') but does not say when to prefer it over related listing tools or how to obtain a route id beyond the schema. Usage is implied by 'by route id', so not absent, but alternatives and exclusions are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server