get_activity_weatherRetrieve weather conditions recorded for a specific Garmin activity by providing its activity ID.
Get weather conditions during an activity.
| 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?
The annotations indicate that this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint: true) and openWorldHint: true, meaning the result set may be incomplete. The description does not contradict these annotations, and the description does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not explain what happens if weather data is unavailable for an activity, but with openWorldHint, that may be implied.
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 one concise sentence that directly states what it does. It is front-loaded and every word is essential. No fluff, just the core purpose.
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 has a simple schema with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the returned weather conditions look like, what units they might be in, or any potential limitations. Given the openWorldHint, the description could mention that weather data may not exist for all activities or the format of the response. It feels incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 has full coverage (100%) with a clear description for activityId. The description adds little beyond the schema, just stating 'weather conditions during an activity' which somewhat aligns with the parameter, but it does not explain the semantics of the output or how activityId is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter.
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?
Description states that the tool gets weather conditions during an activity, which is clear and uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather during an activity'). However, it does not specify that the weather is associated with an activity ID, which is the main input, and it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_activity_details' or 'get_activity_hr_zones', but it is unique enough in context.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when weather data might be available or how it relates to activity details. It is implied that it is used to fetch weather for a given activity, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.