Retrieve Garmin workouts linked to a specific activity ID to review the workout data the API supplies for that activity.
Read Garmin's workouts associated with an activity. Availability and schema vary: this is NOT a guarantee of executed sets, edited exercise names, reps or weights. Return only what the API supplies; do not invent missing strength records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: availability and schema vary, and the result is not a guarantee of executed sets, edited exercise names, reps or weights. That warns the agent about sparse or inconsistent payloads in a way annotations cannot.
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 purpose before the caveats. The closing 'do not invent missing strength records' is an agent instruction that is slightly out of place for a definition but still earns its place as a data-integrity warning.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It does say workouts are returned and may be incomplete, but gives no sense of response shape or what happens when an activity has no associated workouts. Adequate for a simple one-parameter read, but not complete.
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% and the single required parameter, activity_id, carries no description in the schema. The description only implies the id refers to an activity; it does not say where to obtain it (e.g., from garmin_list_activities) or what format is expected. With one parameter and no coverage, the description should compensate and largely does not.
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 verb and resource: read Garmin workouts tied to an activity. That resource is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_activities, get_activity, get_day_detail), so an agent can tell which one fetches workout data. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: use it to fetch workouts for one activity id. The description spends its guidance budget on data-quality caveats (varying availability and schema) rather than when to choose this over garmin_get_activity. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.