plan_my_blockDevuelve un bloque de entrenamiento ciclista periodizado (base/build/peak/taper) hacia tu evento meta, con veredicto de readiness, y te lleva a activarlo en ELSA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_date | Yes | ISO date of the goal event | |
| goal_event | Yes | Target event, e.g. 'Gran Fondo 120km' | |
| recent_training | No | Free-text or pasted Garmin/Strava summary |
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 provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the tool 'te lleva a activarlo en ELSA' (leads to activation), which could be interpreted as a read-only redirection. No hidden side effects are apparent, and the description is consistent with annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the key points efficiently. While it could be slightly more concise or broken into two sentences, it avoids unnecessary fluff and is well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the main purpose and return value (periodized block with readiness verdict). However, it lacks details on the exact output format or how the activation step works, which would be helpful for the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the purpose, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool returns a periodized cycling training block (base/build/peak/taper) for a goal event, with a readiness verdict. It distinguishes from sibling 'match_me_a_club' which is about club matching.
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 implies usage for planning a training block towards a specific event. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tool is very different, making the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one recommends a club, the other plans a training block. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a 'gateway' concept. It may be appropriate for a very narrow scope but is at the lower bound of reasonable tool counts.
The server covers club matching and training planning, but lacks other lifecycle operations like tracking progress or managing events, leaving notable gaps for a cycling app domain.