get_gear_typesFetch all gear/equipment types from Garmin Connect, returning type names and primary keys for use when creating new gear.
Get all available gear/equipment types (e.g., Shoes, Bike, Golf Clubs, Other). Returns type names and primary keys used when creating gear.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns type names and primary keys useful for creating gear, which is a small behavioral note. It doesn't describe any edge cases or additional output details, but for a simple list retrieval with no parameters, this is acceptable. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero filler. Each sentence adds value: first states what's returned, second indicates how the data is used.
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 no params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return value usage. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination, but for a simple static list, this is likely sufficient. The openWorldHint suggests there might be external data, but that's not explained; still, the description is complete enough for this simple tool.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params), so there's nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does add the semantic context that the returned values are used when creating gear, which is helpful.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all available gear/equipment types'), and provides concrete examples (Shoes, Bike, Golf Clubs, Other). It also mentions the return content (type names and primary keys used when creating gear), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gear_makes or get_gear_collections.
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 indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve gear types needed when creating gear. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but given the sibling tools (e.g., get_gear_makes, get_all_gear), the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer context. No alternatives are suggested, but for a reference/lookup tool with no parameters, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.