Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by konstantintutsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_intensity_minutes_data

Read-only

Retrieve available Garmin Connect Intensity Minutes data for a specified date in YYYY-MM-DD format to review daily activity minutes. Supports read-only health queries.

Instructions

Return available Intensity Minutes data 'cdate' format 'YYYY-MM-DD'. (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": {
      "cdate": "<cdate>"
    },
    "name": "get_intensity_minutes_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cdateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so repeating 'read-only' adds little. The description adds the Garmin Connect source and date format, but does not clarify what 'available' data means, pagination, rate limits, or other behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core action. It repeats the date format twice, which is redundant, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only metric tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the metric, source, and date format. Remaining gaps are mainly usage guidance and deeper date semantics rather than missing core information.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that cdate uses YYYY-MM-DD, which is useful, but it does not clarify timezone, whether it is a calendar day, or other constraints beyond the format.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: return Intensity Minutes data. It distinguishes the tool by metric from sibling daily-metric tools such as get_steps_data or get_stress_data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name and required date. The description does not say when to use this instead of related Garmin daily metrics, nor does it mention date-range limitations or exclusions.

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