Retrieve Garmin Connect training metrics for a chosen date, including readiness, status, VO2max, morning readiness, and fitness age, to track performance and recovery.
Training metrics for a date. Pick via metrics: readiness, morning_readiness, status, vo2max, fitness_age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Default: today. | |
| metrics | No | Which training metrics to return. Default: [readiness, status, vo2max]. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the basic scope. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether authentication or a connected device is required, what happens when no data exists for the date, or how much data is returned per metric.
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, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the parameter hint. The only redundancy is restating the metric enum values that the schema already lists.
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, all-optional read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the shape of the returned data per metric and the no-data case.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the date pattern, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's enumeration of metric values duplicates the enum already present in the schema rather than adding new meaning.
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 names a concrete resource ('training metrics') and scopes it to a date, then enumerates the available metric kinds, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The verb is implicit in the 'get_' name, and it draws no boundary against near-siblings like get_fitness or get_daily_health, which is what keeps it from a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_fitness, get_daily_health, or get_activity. 'Pick via `metrics`' is parameter guidance, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.