List the user's workout folders with name and workout count. Call this before create_workout when the user wants the new workout placed in a folder, so you can pass an exact folder_name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folders | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scoping context by saying the folders belong to the user, and it mentions the returned data includes workout count. It does not expose additional behavioral details beyond this, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second explains the practical usage context. Each sentence earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and exactly when the agent should invoke it. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the output schema covers return structure.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is complete and the description does not need to document parameter details. It adds useful context by tying the returned folder_name to the upcoming create_workout call, which helps the agent understand how to use the result.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's workout folders' and explicitly names the output fields ('name and workout count'). It also connects the tool to the downstream create_workout flow, making it easy to distinguish from other get_* tools.
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 clearly states when to call this tool: before create_workout when the new workout should be placed in a folder, so the agent can pass an exact folder_name. It provides a clear trigger context, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to call it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
