Retrieve saved workouts from your Garmin Connect account to review stored training sessions. Set a limit of 1-100; defaults to 50.
Saved workouts on the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max workouts (1-100). Default: 50. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about read-only behavior, pagination, default page size, or ordering. Only a weak implication that this is a read operation can be inferred from the phrase 'saved workouts'.
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?
It is brief, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness - a single nominal fragment with no verb and no front-loaded actionable information. Nothing is wasted, but almost nothing is delivered either.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a bare noun phrase, the definition is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It should at minimum state that it lists workouts for the authenticated user and describe pagination behavior.
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 the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with range and default. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 fragment 'Saved workouts on the account' identifies the resource and the qualifier 'saved' loosely distinguishes it from the sibling get_scheduled_workouts. However it contains no verb at all, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval/list operation, leaving the purpose only implied.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (get_scheduled_workouts, get_training, list_activities). The agent receives nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.