garmin-connect-api

Create strength workout

create_strength_workout

Build a strength workout with named Garmin exercises, sets, reps, and rest, then save it or schedule it to your calendar in one call.

Instructions

Create a strength workout to follow later.

Each exercise becomes a block of sets with a rest between them. Name exercises with Garmin's category and exercise name, which find_exercise gives; an unknown name is rejected with suggestions. For runs, rides and swims use create_endurance_workout; to record a session already done, log_strength_session.

Without schedule_date it is saved, not scheduled. With it, it is put on the calendar in the same call, and the reply carries the schedule_id. If scheduling fails the workout still exists and the error gives its id: schedule that one rather than creating it again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The workout's title.
`exercises`	Yes	The exercises in order, each a block of sets.
`description`	No	Notes shown with the workout.
`schedule_date`	No	If set, the workout is scheduled on this date after creation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No
`name`	No
`sport`	No
`updated`	No
`workout_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`schedule_id`	No	Set when the workout was just scheduled: what unschedule_workout takes.
`scheduled_on`	No	Set when the workout was just scheduled: its calendar day.
`estimated_duration_s`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds non-obvious behavior: without schedule_date it is saved but not scheduled, with it the schedule happens in the same call, the reply carries schedule_id, and — critically — a scheduling failure leaves the workout intact with an id the caller should reuse rather than recreating. That failure-recovery guidance is exactly what annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then naming/routing, then scheduling semantics and failure handling. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 enumerated, yet the description still surfaces the one return detail that matters operationally (schedule_id and the id returned on partial failure). Combined with sibling routing and naming rules, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by tying exercise naming to find_exercise's category/exercise keys and by clarifying the save-vs-schedule dual nature of schedule_date. It adds real value, though it does not describe every field (e.g. weight_kg, reps/sets defaults).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a strength workout to follow later') plus the composite structure ('Each exercise becomes a block of sets with a rest between them'). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (create_endurance_workout, log_strength_session), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use-this and when-to-use-alternatives: runs/rides/swims go to create_endurance_workout, already-completed sessions go to log_strength_session. It also prescribes find_exercise as the source of valid exercise names and warns that unknown names are rejected.

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