Garmin Connect MCP Server

Schedule Workout

schedule_workout

Destructive

Schedule an existing Garmin workout for any specific date by submitting its workout ID and a YYYY-MM-DD date. Returns a workoutScheduleId so you can unschedule later.

Instructions

Schedule an existing workout on a specific date. Returns a workoutScheduleId that can be used to unschedule.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workoutId": "<workoutId>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_workout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date to schedule workout in YYYY-MM-DD format (required)
`workoutId`	Yes	The unique workout identifier (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.3.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations provide destructiveHint, so the agent already knows this operation can have side effects, but the description does not clarify what may be overwritten or what happens on conflict. It adds useful return semantics by stating a workoutScheduleId is returned and can be used to unschedule.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences that cover the operation, the main input, and the return value. Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: schedule an existing workout on a date and receive the schedule ID. The main omission is more detail on destructive side effects, but annotations partially compensate for that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully and has 100% schema coverage. The description mostly echoes the schema context ('existing workout', 'specific date'), so additional semantic value is limited but not required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb ('Schedule'), target resource ('existing workout'), and time constraint ('on a specific date'). This distinguishes it clearly from related sibling tools like create_workout, update_workout, delete_workout, and unschedule_workout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes it clear that the tool expects an already-existing workout and a date, and it references the inverse unschedule operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is reasonably clear from the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server