Skip to main content
Glama

CoachingPortal by Cotlet

Respond to check in in CoachingPortal

coachingportal_respond_to_check_in
Read-onlyIdempotent

Respond to check in in the user's own CoachingPortal account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser. CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "coachingportal_respond_to_check_in"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 readOnlyHint and idempotent annotations, it discloses that the tool opens nothing by itself, returns screens/buttons/fields instructions, and exists because CoachingPortal publishes no public API. This is substantial side-effect and output-shape context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and return behavior, though the opening phrase repeats the title and is slightly awkward. No material waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema instruction tool, the description covers what it returns and what it does not do. It lacks sibling differentiation, which keeps it at 4.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 states the resource and outcome—responding to a check-in—and immediately clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as coachingportal_submit_personal_check_in, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It explains the workflow: call this for instructions, then use cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser. However, it does not state when to choose this over related check-in tools or when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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