Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
garmin-mcp

garmin-mcp

by sasha-sup
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

garmin_api_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch raw JSON from Garmin Connect API endpoints for data not covered by dedicated tools, including SpO2 detail, stress and steps series, hydration, nutrition, and menstrual cycle.

Instructions

Raw JSON from a Garmin Personal API endpoint not covered by other tools (SpO2 detail, stress/steps series, hydration, nutrition, menstrual cycle, fitness age history, HRV readings). Responses are large and truncated at 100 KB: prefer the dedicated tools.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "garmin_api_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD for endpoints with {date}.
queryNoQuery parameters, e.g. {"calendarDate":"2026-11-11"}. Only keys documented for the endpoint are accepted.
end_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD for endpoints with {end}.
endpointYesEndpoint name (see enum).
start_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD for endpoints with {start}.
activity_idNoActivity ID for endpoints with {id}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description's real contribution is the disclosure that responses are large and truncated at 100 KB — a behavioral trait that materially affects how an agent should choose and interpret results. It stops short of covering rate limits, auth requirements, or what an error response looks like, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and coverage, the second delivers the truncation warning and the routing advice. The scope statement is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return shape ('raw JSON') and its size ceiling, which is what an agent most needs here. For a 6-parameter open-world passthrough it is nearly complete, lacking only guidance on malformed endpoints, error behavior, or whether the enum must match a documented endpoint catalog.

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 every parameter and the endpoint enum are already documented in structured form; the description's enumeration of data categories roughly mirrors enum members rather than adding new semantics. It does not explain how date/end_date/activity_id map to specific endpoint template placeholders beyond what the schema already says.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb (returns raw JSON) and a specific resource (a Garmin Personal API endpoint) with an explicit scope boundary: 'not covered by other tools'. It then enumerates concrete data categories (SpO2 detail, stress/steps series, hydration, nutrition, menstrual cycle, fitness age history, HRV readings) so an agent can tell this passthrough apart from the dedicated siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the condition for use (endpoints not covered by other tools) and names the alternative explicitly with an imperative: 'prefer the dedicated tools'. That is a direct when-not-to-use rule rather than an implication the agent must infer from sibling names.

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