GarminMCP

get_training_status_and_load

Retrieve VO2 Max, acute/chronic load, ACWR, training status, recovery time, fitness age, and endurance/hill scores for a target date to assess training progression and injury risk.

Instructions

Retrieve VO2 Max, Acute/Chronic Load (ACWR), Training Status, Recovery Time, Fitness Age, and Endurance/Hill scores.

Coaching Purpose: Quantifies macro- and meso-cycle training load progression and aerobic fitness adaptations. Assesses whether the athlete is Productive, Peaking, Maintaining, Strained, or Overreaching, inspects Acute-to-Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR) for injury-risk management, and checks low/high aerobic vs. anaerobic load balance.

Args: target_date: Target ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today if omitted. response_format: Output representation: "markdown", "json", or "hybrid" (default).

Returns: Formatted report of VO2 Max (running/cycling), Acute Load, Chronic Load, ACWR load ratio, Training Status, Recovery Time remaining, Fitness Age, Endurance Score, and Hill Score.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_training_status_and_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target_date`	No
`response_format`	No		hybrid

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read ('Retrieve'), states defaults for both arguments, and enumerates the returned metrics, but says nothing about data availability (e.g., missing device sync), latency, or permission requirements. Reasonable but not complete for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the metric list, then cleanly sectioned into purpose, args, and returns. Each section is short and scannable; nothing is padded beyond the mild redundancy of restating return values that the output schema already carries.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, both arguments with formats and defaults, and expected return content. The only gap is the absence of any caveat about data availability or fallback behavior when metrics are missing, which matters given the many optional health metrics involved.

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 0%, and the description compensates well: it specifies the target_date format as ISO `YYYY-MM-DD` with a today default, which the schema does not convey, and clarifies that response_format controls output representation with 'hybrid' as default. The enum values themselves restate the schema, preventing a 5.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with an enumerated resource set: VO2 Max, ACWR, Training Status, Recovery Time, Fitness Age, Endurance/Hill scores. The breadth of metrics makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_sleep_and_recovery or get_body_composition_and_biometrics, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'Coaching Purpose' section gives concrete usage context: quantifying macro/meso-cycle load progression, assessing Productive/Peaking/Strained status, and ACWR-based injury-risk management. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives such as get_health_trends for longer-term trending.

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

Deploy Server