Garmin MCP for macOS

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

garmin_api_fitness_age

Read-only

Retrieves Garmin fitness-age data for a chosen date and controls the look-back search; defaults to 7 days and allows at most 31 days.

Instructions

Fitness-age data as of a date. full_history_scan controls the look-back search. Raw JSON fields are not normalized. Date ranges default to 7 days and allow at most 31 days (activity search uses pagination).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "garmin_api_fitness_age"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calendar_date`	No
`full_history_scan`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses that returned fields are raw and unnormalized (important for downstream parsing) and that the look-back is capped at 31 days with a 7-day default. The trailing pagination remark is ambiguous but doesn't contradict anything.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical '(activity search uses pagination)' is slightly confusing in a fitness-age context but does not bloat the text.

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

Completeness3/5

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 safety profile is covered by annotations. However, the calendar_date format and the precise interaction between full_history_scan and the 31-day limit are left unresolved, which an agent would need.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It only loosely maps: 'as of a date' hints at calendar_date (format unstated) and 'full_history_scan controls the look-back search' is vague about what a true value actually does versus the 31-day cap.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: fitness-age data as of a given date. It is clearly distinct from the wellness/activity siblings by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the date-range constraint ('default to 7 days and allow at most 31 days'); there is no statement of when to use this versus garmin_api_daily_summary or other siblings, and no prerequisites.

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