Retrieve your Garmin user profile including units, preferences, and activity level settings.
User profile & settings: units, preferences, activity level, etc.
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_user_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It hints at a read operation but does not confirm safety or disclose any prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects. The behavioral traits are inadequately communicated.
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?
The description is one sentence, efficiently conveying the purpose without redundancy. It uses a list format with examples for clarity, and every word serves a purpose.
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?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing example data categories. However, it could be more explicit about the full return structure. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling diversity, this is nearly adequate.
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?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the categories of data returned (units, preferences, activity level), which helps the agent understand the output content.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves user profile and settings including units, preferences, and activity level. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whoami (basic identity) and get_weight (specific metric).
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?
The description implies usage for getting profile/settings data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_health or get_training. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.