Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by marcelfortmann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_goals

Fetch Garmin Connect goals by status—active, future, or past—to track progress and plan training.

Instructions

Goals filtered by status (active, future, or past).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_goals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax goals (1-50). Default: 30.
statusNoGoal status. Default: active.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Addedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination, or what 'future'/'past' mean relative to today. It adds no behavioral context beyond the filter values.

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?

It is very short with no wasted words, but it is an incomplete sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or how to use it. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, no-required-input read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the schema supplies most of what an agent needs. Still, the description leaves usage context and return behavior unstated, and there are no annotations to compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit 1-50 default 30, status default active) are already fully documented. The description's parenthetical enum merely restates schema content and adds no semantics beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (goals) and the filtering dimension (status with enum values), but is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. It distinguishes the resource from health/fitness siblings only implicitly, by virtue of the word 'Goals'.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of defaults, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only hint is the parenthetical status list, which the schema already provides.

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