garmin-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

garmin_update_activity

Edit a Garmin Connect activity by updating its name, type, description, event type, perceived effort, feel, or gear; only specified fields change, so confirm changes with the user first.

Instructions

Edit an activity: rename, retype, describe, set event type, RPE, feel, or gear. Only the fields given change. Confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "garmin_update_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rpe`	No	Perceived effort 1-10; 0 clears it
`feel`	No	How the effort felt
`name`	No
`add_gear`	No	Gear uuid to attach (garmin_gear)
`type_key`	No	New activity type key
`event_type`	No	race, training, recreation, transportation, ...
`activity_id`	Yes
`description`	No	New description; '' clears it
`remove_gear`	No	Gear uuid to detach

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond that: patch semantics (unspecified fields are left untouched) and a user-confirmation requirement. It stops short of saying what the call returns or how failures on a bad activity_id/gear uuid behave.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and field list, then the two facts an agent most needs: patch semantics and the confirmation gate. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the editable fields, partial-update behavior, and a confirmation requirement, with annotations carrying safety. The main remaining gap is return behavior after a successful edit, which an agent may want before composing a follow-up response.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most fields (rpe range and 0-clears, description '' clears, gear uuid sources, event_type examples). The description's field list largely restates those parameters in prose, confirming the editable surface but adding little syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Edit an activity") and enumerates the editable attributes: rename, retype, describe, event type, RPE, feel, gear. That cleanly separates it from read-side siblings like garmin_activity and from garmin_create_activity, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Only the fields given change" tells the agent this is a partial-update tool, and "Confirm with the user first" gives a concrete precondition for invocation. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives (e.g., use garmin_create_activity for new records), which keeps it 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.