Garmin Connect IQ Simulator MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_unit_tests

Execute Monkey C unit tests from a compiled .prg test binary in the Garmin simulator, optionally targeting a device, test suite, or timeout.

Instructions

Run Monkey C unit tests for a compiled .prg test binary in the simulator using monkeydo -t.

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": {
      "prg_path": "<prg_path>"
    },
    "name": "run_unit_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prg_path`	Yes	Path to compiled test .prg executable
`device_id`	No	Device ID to execute tests on (defaults to active device)
`test_name`	No	Optional specific test name or suite prefix to execute
`timeout_ms`	No	Maximum execution timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying command (monkeydo -t) and the execution environment (simulator), but says nothing about whether a simulator must already be launched, whether the call blocks until completion, what happens on test failure, or how results are surfaced. For a test-execution tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, stating the action, the artifact, the environment, and the command in one pass.

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?

Adequate for a four-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should have covered prerequisites (compiled binary, running simulator) and roughly what a run yields. It leaves an agent guessing at the execution contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (prg_path, device_id, test_name, timeout_ms) are already documented with defaults. The description only reinforces prg_path by calling it a 'compiled .prg test binary'; it adds no behavior about test_name prefix matching or timeout semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Run Monkey C unit tests' against a 'compiled .prg test binary in the simulator', plus the underlying mechanism (monkeydo -t). It is clearly distinguished from run_app/build_app by the unit-test framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (a compiled test .prg must already exist, likely via build_app, and a simulator must be running), and no alternatives or exclusions. The only implied usage comes from the tool name and the mention of a compiled binary.

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