TrainingPeaks MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Log metric in TrainingPeaks

trainingpeaks_log_metric

Read-onlyIdempotent

Log metric in the user's own TrainingPeaks account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in TrainingPeaks step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's TrainingPeaks Cloud Browser. TrainingPeaks's official API: TrainingPeaks has an API, but only approved commercial partners get it, and it is not available for personal use (checked 5 Nov 2026).

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": "trainingpeaks_log_metric"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent, so the bar is lower, but the description adds the critical behavioral fact that the tool "opens nothing by itself" and only returns guidance. It also explains why the browser route is required (official API is partner-only), which preempts an agent asking for an API path. Auth, rate-limit, and response-format details are not covered.

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?

The core behavior is front-loaded and easy to act on, which is good. However, "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler, and the final sentence about the official API, including "checked 5 Nov 2026," is a tangential justification that dilutes an otherwise two-sentence definition.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back and what to do next, and it does both (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, then cotlet_browser_* tools). It is slightly thin on what the caller should specify to get useful steps (e.g. which metric, date), which the agent must infer.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool needs no arguments and the target account is implicit ("the user's own TrainingPeaks account").

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 the surprising actual behavior clear: despite the name, it "Returns how to do it in TrainingPeaks step by step (screens, buttons, fields)" rather than performing the write. That is a specific and disambiguating statement of purpose. It stops short of naming a non-browser sibling (e.g. cotlet_app_guide) it might be confused with, so it isn't a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit two-step workflow: call this first to get instructions, then "do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's TrainingPeaks Cloud Browser." That is clear context for when and how to use it. It offers no exclusion conditions or alternatives, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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

All TrainingPeaks MCP Server and API by Cotlet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?