get_non_completed_badge_challengesRetrieve badge challenges not yet completed from Garmin Connect to identify remaining goals and track progress. Use optional pagination to manage result size.
Get badge challenges that have not been completed yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| start | No | Starting index for pagination |
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., response format, pagination semantics, or relationship to other badge tools). It is a minimal restatement of the filter without enriching the agent's understanding of behavior.
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 sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear. No unnecessary details or filler.
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 is simple (2 optional params, no output schema, read-only), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify how 'non-completed' differs from 'available' challenges (sibling: get_available_badge_challenges) or what constitutes 'completed' (e.g., earned vs. finished). Given the large sibling set, this missing context could lead to incorrect tool selection.
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% for both parameters ('limit' and 'start'), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 'Get badge challenges that have not been completed yet' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('badge challenges') with a clear filter ('not been completed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_badge_challenges' (all challenges) and 'get_available_badge_challenges' (available vs. non-completed), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 when the agent needs non-completed badge challenges, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.