get_device_alarmsRetrieve alarms from Garmin devices, displaying time, repeat days, and active status. Specify a device ID or get all registered devices.
Get the alarms configured on a Garmin device, with time, repeat days and whether each one is on. Without a deviceId every registered device is reported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | No | Optional device identifier (from get_devices). Defaults to every device. |
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the default behavior (returns all devices when no deviceId) and what data is included (time, repeat days, on/off status). However, it does not disclose potential output format or any other behavioral nuances beyond the schema hint.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately clarifies the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence provides value.
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?
Given the tool is a simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the data fields returned (time, repeat days, on/off) and the default behavior. It could mention response format or pagination, but for this simplicity it is adequate.
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% (the parameter has a description). The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it reinforces that deviceId is optional and defaults to every device. Since the schema already covers it, 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 clearly states it gets alarms configured on a Garmin device, specifying the resource ('alarms') and the verb ('get'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on device alarms, and the mention of 'every registered device' when no deviceId is provided clarifies its scope.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve alarms for a device, with optional deviceId to filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_device_settings) suggests differentiation. The behavior when deviceId is omitted is clear, providing usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.