Retrieve a complete summary of a Garmin activity by ID, including splits, training effect, and device details, to review workout performance and context.
Vollständige Zusammenfassung einer Aktivität (Splits-Summary, Trainingseffekt, Gerät usw.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at behavior by calling itself a 'Zusammenfassung' (implying a read). It never states read-only nature, permission needs, error behavior for an invalid activity_id, or response characteristics—well short of what a mutation/retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage requires.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted text. Its brevity borders on being too thin, but structurally it is clean.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the broad return content but omits how to supply activity_id and any operational caveats. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The single activity_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_activities). 'einer Aktivität' only vaguely implies the parameter's subject without adding usable semantics.
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?
States a clear resource (a single activity) and enumerates the returned content (splits summary, training effect, device), so the agent knows it retrieves a detailed activity summary. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like activity_workouts or activity_streams, which also pull activity-level data.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_activities, activity_workouts, or activity_streams, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.