Fetch a single Garmin Connect activity by ID. Choose summary, splits, weather, details, HR zones, or exercise sets to analyze one workout.
Data for a single activity by activityId. Pick via include: summary, splits, weather, details (GPS/HR/power streams), hr_zones, exercise_sets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Which parts to return. Default: [summary]. | |
| activityId | Yes | The numeric activityId (from list_activities). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not state that it is read-only, what happens if the activityId is invalid, or any size/pagination behavior for the heavier includes like details. For a data-fetch tool this leaves notable gaps.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The resource and selector are front-loaded, and the include options follow immediately, making it easy to scan.
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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the include enum reasonably well. It still omits usage context (when to call this vs list_activities) and any behavioral caveats, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning by listing the include options and clarifying that 'details' means GPS/HR/power streams, which is not explicit in the enum alone. This is genuine added semantic value over the schema.
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?
The description states a specific resource ('a single activity') and identifies the key selector ('by activityId'), so the agent can tell it retrieves one activity record. It does not explicitly contrast with list_activities or the other get_* siblings, but the singular scope is clear enough.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The schema note '(from list_activities)' hints at provenance, but the description never says when this tool is preferable to list_activities or how to obtain an activityId. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.