CourseProfiler

Import course

import_course

Import a fetchable official GPX/FIT/CRSProf URL, official ZIP containing exactly one GPX, uploaded source_file artifact, raw JSON payload, or inline/proxied course_file into a CRSProf artifact. Third-party route hosts such as Wikiloc may return 403 to server fetches; when a URL is blocked, ask the user to download/upload the file through POST /api/artifact-uploads outside MCP and pass the returned source_file artifact ID as source.kind=artifact. Use this on catalog misses before waypoint enrichment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	No
`options`	No
`course_file`	No	Inline/proxied GPX, FIT, CRSProf, or ZIP-with-one-GPX file object to import into CRSProf. Use content for text GPX/XML/JSON/CRSProf, base64 for FIT/ZIP/binary, or url only when the URL is fetchable by CourseProfiler. Bare local filesystem paths and file:// URLs are rejected; hosted clients that cannot proxy file bytes must use the REST POST /api/artifact-uploads flow outside MCP first, then pass the returned source_file artifact via source.kind=artifact.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`errors`	No
`job_id`	Yes	CourseProfiler job ID to poll with get_job.
`status`	Yes	Job status, e.g. queued, running, succeeded, or failed.
`progress`	No
`warnings`	No
`created_at`	No	ISO-8601 creation timestamp.
`expires_at`	No	ISO-8601 expiration timestamp.
`started_at`	No	ISO-8601 start timestamp, when available.
`status_url`	No	Relative API URL for polling this job.
`completed_at`	No	ISO-8601 completion timestamp, when available.
`result_artifacts`	No	Artifacts produced by the job, including role metadata.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses server fetch limitations (403 from Wikiloc/route hosts), the workaround (artifact-uploads flow), and the restriction to official sources and ZIP with exactly one GPX. It does not mention return format or permissions, but the output schema exists and mutation is implied by 'import'.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff; the list of accepted formats is necessary and the workaround is essential. Front-loads with the verb 'Import' and resource.

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?

For a complex tool with multiple source formats, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers accepted inputs, the 403 edge case, and the correct sequence relative to other tools. Options remain unspecified, but it's an optional additionalProperties object and the key cases are covered.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, but the description enumerates the accepted source.kind variants (url, artifact, raw_json, raw_file), explains when to use artifact (blocked URL) and clarifies the ZIP constraint, adding meaning beyond the schema's property 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?

The description specifies exact accepted input formats (GPX/FIT/CRSProf URL, ZIP with one GPX, artifact, raw JSON, inline course_file) and states the destination ('into a CRSProf artifact'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like enrich_course_waypoints via the 'before waypoint enrichment' cue.

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 states usage timing ('Use this on catalog misses before waypoint enrichment') and gives a clear when-to-alternative: if URL blocked, use POST /api/artifact-uploads and pass artifact id. This tells the agent when to invoke and what to do instead.

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

All CourseProfiler tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct step in the course/race-planning workflow, and descriptions carefully separate concerns like importing, enriching, segmenting, and generating a plan. The main ambiguity is among the multiple get_*_requirements helpers, but their target phases are clear enough to avoid persistent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, enrich_, export_, generate_, get_, import_, search_, submit_, validate_). There is no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 16 tools, the server is at the upper edge of the ideal range but each tool serves a distinct purpose in a complex pipeline covering course import, enrichment, segmentation, runner profiling, plan creation, PDF export, validation, and catalog submission. The count feels justified for the domain rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle from course discovery/import through enrichment, segmentation, runner profiling, race plan generation, PDF export, and catalog submission. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of artifact list/delete/update tools and no direct race-plan editing, but agents can work around these via get_artifact and get_job.

Resources

Need Help?