Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by marcelfortmann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_workouts

Retrieve saved workouts from your Garmin account to review training history or analyze workout data. Set a limit to control how many workouts are returned.

Instructions

Saved workouts on the account.

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_workouts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax workouts (1-100). Default: 50.

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

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden and it largely does not: nothing about read-only nature, ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or error behavior. The only cue is the plural noun implying a list, which is minimal disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

The description is a five-word fragment: nothing wasted, but also nothing front-loaded or structured, and it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an unannotated tool with no output schema, the description should at least say what a workout record contains or how results are returned. It delivers only a resource label, leaving key expectations for the agent to discover by calling the tool.

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?

With a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents 'limit' with its range and default. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('saved workouts') and implies retrieval, but supplies no verb and no scope, so the agent must infer that this is a read/list operation. It gains some differentiation from the sibling get_scheduled_workouts by saying 'saved', but that distinction is never made explicit.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when to prefer a sibling such as get_scheduled_workouts or get_training, or what prerequisites exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the resource noun.

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