List Garmin Connect activities in an inclusive date range up to 366 days, defaulting to the last 14 days. Use start and end dates to review training and health data.
List activities in an inclusive range of up to 366 days; defaults to the last 14 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two real constraints: the range is inclusive and capped at 366 days, and the default window is 14 days. It omits pagination, ordering, and what 'limit' does, so it is only partially transparent.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two constraints that matter. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a zero-coverage 3-parameter tool the description leaves 'limit' and date format undocumented, which is a meaningful gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the start/end date semantics (inclusive range, 366-day cap) and the default range, which covers two of three parameters, but says nothing about 'limit' or the date string format.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('activities'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identically-named siblings get_activity and get_recent_activities, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives like get_activity or get_recent_activities. The stated default window (last 14 days) is a behavioral default, not routing guidance, so the agent gets no help choosing among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.