Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by konstantintutsch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_weekly_activity_stats

Read-only

Retrieve weekly Garmin activity aggregates—VO2 max, distance, duration, and more—for a date range, optionally grouped by activity type. Use for summarizing training trends.

Instructions

Return weekly activity aggregates (VO2 max, distance, duration, ...). (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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "get_weekly_activity_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYes
startYes
group_by_activity_typeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds source context (Garmin Connect) and date formatting, but it does not explain weekly boundary behavior, aggregation semantics, or any rate limits.

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 front-loaded and efficient, with no filler sentences. The trailing ellipsis in the aggregate list adds slight ambiguity but does not ruin conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description omits key semantics for start, end, and group_by_activity_type, leaving the agent with material gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that dates use YYYY-MM-DD; it says nothing about whether start/end are inclusive, how weeks are bounded, or what group_by_activity_type=true does.

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 weekly activity aggregates, with examples like VO2 max, distance, and duration. This distinguishes it from daily-stat siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative such as get_progress_summary_between_dates.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this weekly aggregate tool versus daily summaries or date-range progress summaries. The weekly scope is implied, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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