get_workout_by_idRetrieve detailed information for a specific workout by supplying its unique ID, enabling quick access to workout specifics from Garmin Connect.
Get detailed information about a specific workout by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workoutId | Yes | The unique workout identifier (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'get detailed information', which is consistent with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not contradict. However, it adds little beyond the annotations; it doesn't mention what fields are returned or any potential nulls. Because annotations already signal read-only and open-world, the description's contribution is minimal but not contradictory.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and object.
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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations. The description suffices for an agent to understand its purpose. No output schema exists, but that's not required for a simple retrieval; the description could mention what 'detailed information' includes, but it's not necessary at this complexity level.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage, describing the workoutId parameter as the unique identifier and required. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that; it doesn't explain the format or examples. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific workout, using a verb ('get') and a specific resource ('workout by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_workouts (which likely lists workouts) and download_workout (which likely downloads data).
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 fetching a single workout's details when an ID is known, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over other siblings like get_workouts or download_workout. No alternative tools are mentioned, so it's adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.