Retrieve Garmin Connect activities within a date range, newest first, with optional activity type filter and pagination.
Aktivitäten (kompakt) im Zeitraum, neueste zuerst. Standard: letzte 30 Tage.
activity_type z.B. running, cycling, trail_running, lap_swimming, strength_training.
Für mehr als limit Einträge mit start paginieren.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| activity_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), default time window, compactness, and pagination behavior, but does not mention return format, authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then defaults, example values, and pagination guidance. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition.
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?
Adequate for a listing tool but incomplete given five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It should specify date formats, timezone/boundary behavior, maximum limit, and what fields a compact activity entry includes.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five parameters. It explains `activity_type` with examples and clarifies `limit`/`start` pagination plus the default date range, but leaves `start_date` and `end_date` formats and boundary semantics undocumented.
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 specific resource and scope: compact activities in a time period, newest first, default last 30 days. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from close siblings such as activity_details or activity_workouts.
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?
Provides some operational guidance: default range is last 30 days and paginate with `start` when exceeding `limit`. It does not say when to choose this tool over siblings like activity_details, activity_workouts, or activity_streams.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.