Skip to main content
Glama

Find an exercise

find_exercise
Read-onlyIdempotent

The exercise for a name in English; word order, plurals, abbreviations such as db, kb and rdl, and a small misspelling are understood. A match is the exercise of that name, or the one it means when the name leaves out the equipment or a word such as biceps. Returns id, name, category, equipment, body part and the still's URL; where written, the pattern, the primary and secondary muscles, the cues and the common mistakes; and the URL of its guide page where it has one. When no exercise matches that closely, returns null and up to five exercises sharing words with the name. In a client with MCP Apps, such as Claude, every call shows the person its result as a card.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "find_exercise"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe exercise's name, such as goblet squat or db romanian deadlift.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses fuzzy-match tolerance (word order, plurals, abbreviations like db/kb/rdl, small misspellings), the no-match fallback (null plus up to five word-sharing exercises), and the MCP Apps card rendering side effect. It also says the name may resolve to a variant that omits equipment or a qualifier such as 'biceps', which is behavior no annotation conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence carries information, and the matching rules come first. But the phrasing is convoluted and run-on ('The exercise for a name in English; word order, plurals...', 'where written, the pattern...'), which makes the dense payload slower to parse than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of return values, and it does: id, name, category, equipment, body part, image URL, pattern, muscles, cues, common mistakes, and guide-page URL. Fallback and UI side effects are also covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the single 'name' parameter with examples, yet the description adds genuine meaning: the range of accepted name forms and how the matcher normalizes them. Nothing about the parameter's intent is left ambiguous.

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?

The description makes clear this is a name-based lookup of a single exercise, with explicit fuzzy-match rules, which distinguishes it from a bulk lister like list_exercises. It never names the siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated, but the verb/resource pair is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you have an exercise name (including sloppy ones) and want the matching exercise. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to list_exercises or show_workout as alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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