List Garmin Connect activities from the past 1–90 days, optionally filtered by activity type, to summarize recent training and recovery patterns.
List activities from the last 1-90 days, optionally filtered by type (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| activity_type | 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 does disclose the meaningful constraints that stay within a 1-90 day window and that type matching is case-insensitive, but it says nothing about result capping or truncation behavior despite a default limit of 20, nor about read-only safety. Useful context, but not complete for a zero-annotation tool.
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 compact sentence with no padding, front-loading the verb, resource, and time bound. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter tool, but there is zero wasted language.
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-value details are not required. Still, an agent calling this needs to know the default day window and that 'limit' caps results; those gaps are not covered by schema descriptions or annotations, leaving the definition only minimally viable.
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 does document the valid range for 'days' (1-90) and the case-insensitive behavior of 'activity_type', but omits the 'limit' parameter entirely and never states the default window of 14 days. Partial compensation for three undocumented parameters.
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') with a bounded scope ('last 1-90 days'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling get_activities, leaving the agent to guess which list endpoint is appropriate.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools (get_activities, get_activity, compare_activities), and no exclusions. The recency window is implied by the name but never framed as the selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.