Garmin Connect IQ Simulator MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_app

Compile a Monkey C project for a specified Garmin device with the SDK compiler, producing a .prg binary for simulator testing.

Instructions

Build a Monkey C project for a specified device using the SDK monkeyc compiler.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>"
    },
    "name": "build_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device_id`	No	Garmin device ID to build for (e.g. 'fenix847mm'). Defaults to active device.
`extra_args`	No	Extra CLI flags to pass directly to monkeyc
`jungle_file`	No	Path to jungle build file (defaults to project_dir/monkey.jungle)
`project_dir`	Yes	Path to Monkey C project directory containing monkey.jungle or manifest.xml
`output_prg_path`	No	Destination file path for output .prg binary
`developer_key_path`	No	Path to developer key (.der). Defaults to developer_key.der in project or SDK.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden but only says it invokes the monkeyc compiler. It omits that this is a mutating operation producing an output binary, whether output_prg_path is overwritten, what happens on compile failure, and whether it deploys anything. These gaps matter for a build tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource leading. Efficient with no wasted wording, though it is arguably terse for a multi-parameter build tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a build tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It never indicates the produced artifact (.prg) or the relationship to the run/deploy siblings, which would help the agent place it in the workflow.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults for device_id, jungle_file, and developer_key_path. The description adds only the notion of a target device and the compiler, which is marginal beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (build), resource (Monkey C project), and the underlying compiler (SDK monkeyc) plus the device scoping. It is clearly distinguishable from simulator/UI siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with run_app or run_unit_tests which may also trigger builds.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a build typically precedes run_app or launch_simulator), and no exclusions or alternative routing. The agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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