Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by konstantintutsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_rhr_day

Read-only

Retrieve resting heart rate data for a specific date (YYYY-MM-DD) from Garmin Connect.

Instructions

Return resting heart rate data for '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_rhr_day"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cdateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' is redundant. The only behavioral addition is the date format constraint, with no mention of data granularity, missing-day behavior, or permissions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short but states the 'YYYY-MM-DD' format twice (once for cdate and once parenthetically), which is redundant. Minor inefficiency but nothing harmful.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and for a one-parameter tool the description is mostly adequate. It still lacks sibling differentiation and any indication of what a single day's resting heart rate response contains.

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 0% and the single 'cdate' parameter has no description in the schema, so the description's 'YYYY-MM-DD' note genuinely compensates for that gap. However, it only supplies the format, not what cdate means (presumably calendar date) or any range constraints.

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 names a specific verb and resource: return resting heart rate data. That distinguishes it from generic heart-rate siblings like get_heart_rates, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from get_daily_heart_rate_stats.

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?

It states the source (Garmin Connect) and that the data is read-only, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the closely-related heart rate siblings. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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