Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by konstantintutsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_stats_and_body

Read-only

Retrieve a Garmin Connect daily summary and body composition for a specified YYYY-MM-DD date.

Instructions

Return the daily summary and body composition for a date. (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_stats_and_body"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cdateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'read-only' in the description merely restates structured data. The description adds source context (Garmin Connect) and date format but says nothing about behavior on days without data, units, or which metrics the summary contains—acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not additive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the parenthetical with source and date format. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the one required parameter's format is supplied, so an agent can call this correctly. The only real gap is the undefined boundary against sibling summary/composition tools.

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?

The single parameter 'cdate' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying the format: 'Dates are YYYY-MM-DD.' That is precisely the missing information needed to pass the argument correctly.

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+resource ('Return the daily summary and body composition for a date') that an agent can grasp immediately. However, it never distinguishes itself from get_user_summary, get_daily_summaries, or get_body_composition, which appear to return overlapping data, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 a date' implies the calling context (single-day lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no routing to the more granular alternatives such as get_body_composition or get_user_summary. Usage must be inferred from the name and sibling list.

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