Fetch a specific Garmin activity's full details, with optional interval splits, to evaluate heart rate drift and elevation changes after a session.
Get one activity in detail, optionally with detected intervals/laps.
Use for post-session analysis: how each interval actually went, HR drift, and where elevation was gained. Activity ids look like "i55751783".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes | ||
| include_intervals | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns detailed activity data and optionally detected intervals/laps, and it gives an id format hint. However, it does not describe response structure, errors, or access requirements, which would matter without an output schema.
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 concise sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second gives the usage context, and the third provides an id format example. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers core purpose and parameters well. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape unspecified and doesn't point to list_activities for finding activity ids, which is a meaningful gap.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining activity_id format with the example 'i55751783' and clarifying include_intervals as toggling detected intervals/laps. Both parameters receive meaningful semantic context beyond their bare schema definitions.
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?
Description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get one activity in detail' with optional 'detected intervals/laps.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_activities and get_activity_streams, and the mention of post-session analysis adds purpose beyond a generic fetch.
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?
It explicitly says to use this for post-session analysis and gives concrete examples: how intervals went, HR drift, and elevation gained. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.