coros-training-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export Activity File

export_activity_file

Export a completed COROS activity file as GPX, FIT, TCX, KML, or CSV and save it locally, optionally to a specified path.

Instructions

Export a completed Coros activity file and save it locally.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>",
      "sport_type": "<sport_type>"
    },
    "name": "export_activity_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_type`	No	Export format: gpx, fit, tcx, kml, or csv. Default: gpx.	gpx
`sport_type`	Yes	Sport type ID from list_activities (for example 100=Running, 200=Road Bike).
`activity_id`	Yes	The activity ID (labelId) from list_activities.
`output_path`	No	Optional local destination path. When omitted, the server saves the file in the current working directory using the exported filename.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (a file is written locally), but says nothing about overwrite behavior when a file already exists, auth requirements, or whether the operation is retryable/idempotent.

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?

A single lean sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but structurally it is efficient.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters need not be re-explained. What is missing is routing context (why export vs. get_activity_detail) and local-filesystem side-effect details, leaving the definition adequate but not complete for a write-to-disk tool.

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 100%, so the schema already explains file_type, sport_type, activity_id, and output_path including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Export) and resource (a completed Coros activity file), plus the outcome (save locally). This is clear enough that an agent knows it produces a file artifact rather than metadata, though it never names the closest sibling (get_activity_detail) to sharpen the distinction.

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 word 'completed' implies the activity must already be finished and thus present in list_activities, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and nothing tells the agent how to choose this over get_activity_detail or what to do if export fails.

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