get_gear_makesRetrieve all available gear brands and their primary keys from Garmin Connect, enabling selection menus or filtering by shoe or equipment type.
Get all available gear brands/makes (e.g., Nike, Adidas, ASICS, Brooks). Returns make names and primary keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, which covers safety and extensibility. The description adds that it returns make names and primary keys, which is a behavioral detail not in annotations. No contradiction, and the description provides useful context about the return content.
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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences. It uses an example to clarify, which is helpful, but the second sentence about return values is a bit redundant given the first sentence already mentions brands/makes; still, it specifies the primary keys, adding 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?
This is a simple read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate: it states what it returns and provides examples. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning ordering or if it returns all makes at once, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (essentially empty). The description adds the meaning of the output (make names and primary keys) which is useful since there are no parameters to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this holds.
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 returns all available gear brands/makes with examples and specifies that it returns make names and primary keys. This is a specific verb (get) and resource (gear makes), and it distinguishes from siblings like get_all_gear and get_gear_types.
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 implies usage for retrieving a list of gear makes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_all_gear or get_gear_types. The sibling tools exist for broader gear data and types, so some context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.