Skip to main content
Glama

log_exercise

Log one set of a strength exercise (reps, and the weight in pounds; 0 for bodyweight), and mark the exercise done. Repeat the call for the next sets.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "reps": "<reps>",
      "weight": "<weight>"
    },
    "name": "log_exercise"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repsYesReps done in this set.
notesNoNotes on the set. Optional.
weightYesPounds; 0 for bodyweight.
task_idYesA strength exercise task id from get_today.
mark_doneNoDefault true: the exercise is marked done when the set saves.
set_numberNoDefault 1; pass 2 for the second set, and so on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive write in a closed world. The description adds the key side effect that the exercise is marked done when the set saves, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about validation failures, what happens on a repeated set_number, or what is returned.

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 short clauses that front-load the action and its unit conventions, followed by the repetition pattern. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the per-set iteration model well. The remaining gap is the response behavior and how task_id relates to get_today, which the schema partially covers.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters including notes, set_number, and mark_done are already documented. The description's weight/bodyweight convention merely restates the schema, and it does not clarify how set_number interacts with repeated calls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: logging one set of a strength exercise with reps and weight. The 'one set' scoping and the strength qualifier implicitly separate it from log_cardio, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a usable calling pattern ('repeat the call for the next sets'), which is real guidance an agent needs. It does not say when to choose this over complete_task, log_cardio, or skip_task, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources