get_activity_detailsRetrieve comprehensive details for a specific Garmin activity, including splits, heart rate zones, and GPS data, by providing its activity ID.
Get detailed information about a specific activity including splits, heart rate zones, and GPS data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds content details (splits, HR zones, GPS) but does not disclose potential behavioral nuances like payload size, error conditions, or authentication requirements. With annotations providing baseline safety, the added context is acceptable but not rich.
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 a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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 helps by listing example content, but it does not exhaustively enumerate all possible fields. For a tool that likely returns a substantial dataset, this is a minor gap. However, given the simple input and clear intent, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope.
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 schema fully describes the only parameter (activityId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the semantic burden.
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's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific activity, with explicit examples of data types (splits, heart rate zones, GPS data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual data categories (e.g., get_activity_splits, get_activity_hr_zones).
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific activity sub-tools available among siblings. It implies comprehensiveness but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.