Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by konstantintutsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_earned_badges

Read-only

Retrieve all earned Garmin Connect badges for the current user, enabling read-only review of account achievements.

Instructions

Return all earned badges for the current user. (Garmin Connect, read-only. Dates are YYYY-MM-DD.)

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_earned_badges"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description's "read-only" merely restates that. It adds a minimal scope detail (current user's badges only) but no pagination, coverage limits, or empty-result behavior. The "Dates are YYYY-MM-DD" note is boilerplate that does not correspond to any parameter or return field described here, so it contributes nothing.

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?

Front-loaded and short: the action and scope come first. The parenthetical date-format clause is dead weight for a param-free tool and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight two-sentence description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; with no parameters, the description is close to complete. The only shortfall is the unexplained date-format remark and the absence of any note about result volume or ordering.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description could add. The stray date-format remark is harmless but does not document anything, and could momentarily suggest nonexistent date inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Return all earned badges") plus the scope ("for the current user"). No sibling tool covers badges, so there is no ambiguity to resolve against the other 60+ Garmin tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"for the current user" and the empty parameter schema make the usage pattern obvious enough to infer, but the description never states when an agent should reach for this versus other summary/totals tools (e.g., get_lifetime_totals, get_user_statistics). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools