get_personal_recordsRetrieve all personal records from Garmin Connect, including record type, value, date set, and associated activity. Use this to view your PRs across categories.
Get all personal records (PRs). Each record carries a typeId identifying its category, its value, the date it was set and, for records set during an activity, that activity.
| 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 include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, meaning it's a safe read with open-world semantics. The description adds useful context: records include typeId, value, date, and optional activity, which clarifies the data shape beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 main purpose and followed by a useful elaboration on record fields. No fluff, every sentence adds 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?
For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It describes what is returned (records and fields) without needing to detail return format. It lacks few details but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description explains the return structure (fields per record), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema, justifying a high score.
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 all personal records (PRs) and enumerates what each record contains (typeId, value, date, activity). It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_activity_details or get_user_profile.
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 it's for retrieving PRs but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to. There is no mention of filters or related tools, but the context of being a general list tool is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.