Skip to main content
Glama

get_activity_hr_in_timezones

Read-only

Retrieve time spent in each heart rate zone for a Garmin activity to analyze workout intensity distribution.

Instructions

Return the time spent in each heart rate zone during an activity. (Garmin Connect, read-only. Dates are YYYY-MM-DD.)

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": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity_hr_in_timezones"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activity_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' in the description is redundant. The one piece of added text, 'Dates are YYYY-MM-DD', refers to no parameter in this schema and is therefore noise rather than behavioral context; nothing is said about where activity_id comes from or what happens when the activity lacks HR data.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is partly wasted on a date format that no parameter uses, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description leaves the activity_id type unresolved and gives no hint that the ID is obtained from get_activities or get_last_activity, which is the main practical gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter activity_id is undocumented. The description could have clarified the integer-vs-string ambiguity in the anyOf, but instead spends its sentence on an irrelevant date-format note.

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 and resource: returns time spent in each heart rate zone for an activity. The 'heart rate' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_activity_power_in_timezones, but the description never names that sibling or state the difference 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 guidance on when to use this instead of get_activity_splits, get_heart_rates, get_rhr_day, or get_activity_power_in_timezones. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is per-activity zone distribution rather than per-sample or summary heart rate data.

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