download_activityDownload Garmin activity data in your choice of FIT, TCX, GPX, KML, or CSV format using its activity ID.
Download an activity in various formats (FIT, TCX, GPX, KML, CSV).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Download format: fit, tcx, gpx, kml, csv. Defaults to fit. | |
| activityId | Yes | The unique activity identifier (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation that may return external data. The description adds context about the formats available, but doesn't discuss authentication or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description adds some value beyond them.
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?
One sentence, no filler, front-loads the essential purpose and formats. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with only 2 parameters and full schema coverage. Given the annotations and schema, the description is adequate. However, it could mention the return format or whether the download includes a raw file vs a link, but for a simple download tool, this is acceptable.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: 'format' lists formats and default, 'activityId' is described. The description simply restates the formats in the schema, adding no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the verb 'Download' and the resource 'an activity' along with the formats. It's clear and distinguishes from siblings like get_activity_details and download_workout. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource+formats make it specific enough.
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 doesn't mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like download_workout or get_activity_details. It implies the use case of downloading activity data in a specific format, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.