Retrieve summary and detailed metrics for a single Garmin activity by activity ID to review workout performance.
单次运动详情。与官方客户端 get_activity 一一对应。参数和日期限制沿用官方接口。Return the activity summary/details for an activity ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description hints that date restrictions exist ('日期限制沿用官方接口') but never states what they are, and adds nothing about returned fields, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits from the open-world backend.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences say one thing twice: the Chinese '单次运动详情' and English 'Return the activity summary/details' are redundant, and the 'official client one-to-one' and 'official interface' sentences earn no place. Front-loading is acceptable but the content is padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description should state what the response contains and how to supply a valid ID. It gestures at 'summary/details' but leaves the return shape and ID format unexplained, and the referenced external interface is not resolvable by the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter activity_id has 0% schema description coverage and accepts integer or string via anyOf, yet the description says nothing about the accepted format, whether both types behave identically, or where an activity ID comes from. With low coverage the description was obliged to compensate and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: returns the summary/details for a single activity ID, with '单次' establishing single-record scope versus the sibling search_activities. However, it never distinguishes itself from get_activity_workouts or download_activity, which also take an activity, and the '与官方客户端一一对应' sentence is meta-commentary rather than purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this versus search_activities, get_activity_workouts, or download_activity. '参数和日期限制沿用官方接口' defers usage constraints to an external 'official interface' the agent cannot inspect, so no actionable guidance is conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.