Garmin MCP for macOS

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

garmin_api_hrv_summaries

Read-only

Fetch HRV summaries for a specified date range to track heart-rate variability; ranges default to 7 days and are limited to 31 days, returning raw JSON fields.

Instructions

HRV summaries across a date interval. 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_hrv_summaries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_date`	No
`from_date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context: raw JSON fields are not normalized, and ranges default to 7 days with a hard 31-day cap. The trailing '(activity search uses pagination)' note is confusing in an HRV context but doesn't misstate behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three short sentences, well front-loaded with purpose first. The final parenthetical about activity search pagination is irrelevant to this tool and reads like boilerplate leaked from another definition, diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 need not be described, but the 'not normalized' warning is left unexplained and the date parameter format is never stated. For a zero-required-parameter, zero-schema-coverage tool, one more sentence on date format would make it complete.

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 compensate, and it does partially by stating the default span and maximum span. However, it never says what format from_date/to_date take or how they interact (inclusive/exclusive), leaving both parameters under-specified.

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 resource and shape: HRV summaries over a date interval. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like garmin_api_hrv_daily or garmin_hrv, so an agent cannot tell which HRV variant to pick from the description alone.

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?

The date-range defaults (7 days, 31-day cap) imply when the tool is usable, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over garmin_api_hrv_daily or the other HRV siblings, and no stated exclusions.

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