garmin-mcp-local

by the-mace

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Garmin data: sync management, data retrieval for specific domains (activities, health, sleep, training), and direct SQL access. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_sleep, list_activities, sync_now), with 'get' and 'list' as common prefixes, making the naming predictable.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is ideal for a Garmin data server: it covers core operations (sync, backfill, query) without being overwhelming or sparse. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
Completeness4/5
The set provides direct tools for activities, health metrics, sleep, and training trends, but lacks dedicated tools for backfilled categories like body composition or race predictions. However, the execute_sql tool allows ad hoc queries to fill these gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the returned metrics but omits critical details: whether data is per-day aggregated, how missing dates are handled, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that fronts the key information (metrics and date range). It is free of redundancy. A minor improvement would be adding examples or splitting into bullet points for readability, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's core functionality and format, but given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be elaborated. However, it lacks usage context, error behavior, and parameter range, making it only minimally complete for a tool with unannotated parameters.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add the date format requirement ('YYYY-MM-DD') and notes inclusivity, which clarifies the parameters' role. However, it doesn't describe error conditions or bounds, leaving some ambiguity. This meets a baseline but doesn't excel.
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?
The description specifies a clear verb ('get') and resource ('daily health metrics') along with a concrete list of metrics (steps, HR, stress, body battery, SpO2, respiration). This differentiates it from siblings like get_activity_detail (single metric) and get_sleep (specific domain), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_detail or get_training_trends. The description mentions the date range and inclusivity but fails to offer any contextual cues for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions 'controlled batch' and 'walk further back' but does not disclose whether it is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. Lacks details on concurrency, rate limits, or result handling beyond walking history.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus list of categories. Purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, return values not needed. But the tool has 3 parameters, only one partially explained. The missing explanation for batch_days and earliest_date leaves some ambiguity. Sibling context is provided, but the description does not fully address how this tool fits into the overall workflow with other sync tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0%; description explains categories well but batch_days and earliest_date are not described. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning for those two. Only partially compensates for lack of schema descriptions.
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?
Clear verb and resource: 'backfill batch' per category. Distinguishes from siblings by being a controlled incremental walk, not a full sync. Explicitly states this tool is for repeated calls to cover full history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Says to call repeatedly, and explains the categories parameter to restrict. But no explicit comparison to sibling tools like sync_now or bulk export, nor conditions for when not to use. Implied usage is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists output fields but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that it is read-only. The inclusive date range is noted, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information, making it efficient. It could be improved by front-loading the action (e.g., 'Retrieve training trends...') but remains concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple structure with 2 parameters and no nested objects. The description covers the return values and input format adequately, but lacks details on aggregation logic or default behaviors. It is complete enough for a straightforward retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description adds value by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that the range is inclusive. This clarifies the intended input beyond raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description lists specific metrics returned (training status, readiness, VO2max, etc.) for a date range, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_activity_detail or get_daily_health_metrics by focusing on aggregated training trends over a period.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the tool is for a date range with inclusive YYYY-MM-DD format, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, relying on the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists what data is returned (laps, zones, gear) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions, performance implications, or data freshness. The output schema likely provides structure, but the description lacks depth.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output components. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simple interface (1 required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks any guidance on error handling or when to use, which are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain the 'activity_id' parameter beyond its existence. No format, validation, or context is provided for the integer ID.
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?
The description clearly states it returns 'full detail for one activity' including specific components like summary, laps, zones, and gear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_activities' (which likely returns summaries) and 'get_training_trends' (trends).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a single activity's detailed data is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the data returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature. The 'get' prefix implies a safe read operation, but not explicitly stated.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It covers the key elements: resource, action, and parameter format efficiently.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides essential information about the data and parameters. Minor gap: it does not specify the user context or scope of data, but this is acceptable for a simple 'get' tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the date range format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and inclusiveness. However, it does not differentiate between start_date and end_date or describe their individual semantics beyond the general range context.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'Nightly sleep stages + sleep score breakdown' for a date range, specifying the inclusive format and date string pattern. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_activity_detail' or 'get_daily_health_metrics' by focusing solely on sleep data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the date range scope and format, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, ad hoc execution, local cache target, and allowed statement types. Could mention potential side effects from EXPLAIN or PRAGMA, but overall transparent.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical constraints. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema. Explains allowed statements and read-only nature. Could mention error handling or caching implications, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only says 'query' without adding format, length limits, or examples. The parameter meaning is implied but not elaborated beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Run', resource 'ad hoc read-only SQL query against the local cache', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle health metrics, sync, and activities.
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?
Explicitly lists allowed statement types (SELECT/WITH/EXPLAIN/PRAGMA), providing clear constraints. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the constraint is strong enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by describing it as a status check, but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not explicit.
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 composed of two efficient sentences: the first describes the output, the second provides usage guidance. There is no superfluous information, and it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and a clear purpose, the description is complete. It covers the key information needed for an agent to decide when and why to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states what the tool returns: sync_log entries covering fetched items, failures, rate-limits, and resume cursors. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sync_now and backfill_batch_now by focusing on status inspection rather than triggering actions.
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 provides explicit guidance to check this tool before interpreting 'no data' as a real gap vs. an unsynced range. This offers context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses data source ('local cache') and exact match semantics. Without annotations, could be clearer about non-destructive nature, but 'list' implies read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with clear bullet points for parameters. Slightly verbose with Garmin examples, but overall efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Covers all parameters and provides examples. With output schema present, return values need no explanation. Missing mention of limit behavior, but minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds substantial meaning beyond empty schema descriptions: formats, optionality, filtering behavior, and guidance on when to use each filter. Compensates fully for 0% schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states 'List activities from the local cache, most recent first' – a specific verb and resource with ordering. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_activity_detail and get_sync_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises preferring sport_type over activity_type for grouping questions, with concrete examples. Also explains date format and optionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: hits live API, pulls new data since last sync, respects 429 cooldown, and is not triggered automatically. No contradictions or omissions.
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?
Four concise sentences, each adding valuable information. First sentence front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior, constraints, and usage context completely. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, baseline 4 as per guidelines. Description adds no additional parameter info since none exist.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'hit' and resource 'live Garmin API', specifying 'pull new data since last successful sync, for every category'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sync_status and backfill_batch_now by emphasizing an explicit, forced sync.
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?
Mentions rate-limiting and cooldown respect, and that it's never called automatically, implying manual use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_sync_status for status checking or backfill_batch_now for historical data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![garmin-mcp-local MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/the-mace/garmin-mcp-local/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/the-mace/garmin-mcp-local)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![garmin-mcp-local MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/the-mace/garmin-mcp-local/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/the-mace/garmin-mcp-local)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/the-mace/garmin-mcp-local'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server