Trainzilla Coach MCP

create_gym_workflow

Create a gym-wide workflow (needs the gym's workflow permission): either templateKey (see list_workflow_templates) or a full definition. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)

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": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "create_gym_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
`organizationId`	Yes	Gym id (from list_my_organizations)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / input / properties / sequence

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Required when trigger.type is \"weekly_sequence\" (a weekly message series); actions then only carries the delivery channel",
+  "properties": {
+    "messages": {
+      "description": "Message 1 goes out on the first weekday after a client starts, message 2 a week later, and so on",
+      "items": {
+        "maxLength": 1000,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 52,
+      "minItems": 1,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "planIds": {
+      "description": "Only clients on these plans; omit for every client",
+      "items": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "weekday": {
+      "description": "0=Sunday..6=Saturday, read in each client's own time zone",
+      "maximum": 6,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "weekday",
+    "messages"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight here and does add value: it discloses the required permission and the two-phase confirm-gated preview behavior, which is exactly the kind of fact an agent needs before attempting a mutation. It stops short of describing what the preview contains or what happens on validation failure/duplicate names.

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?

Two compact clauses, mutation-and-permission stated first, the preview gate last. Nothing is padded, though the misleading templateKey aside occupies prime real estate in the opening sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The two highest-risk behaviors for a write tool — authorization and the confirm gate — are covered, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out. Still missing: how trigger.type values map to sequence/actions requirements and how this differs from the template-based creation sibling.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 67% schema coverage and a deeply nested input object, the description should compensate, but it only restates the confirm gate (already documented in the schema's confirm description) and references a templateKey parameter that does not exist in the schema. The trigger types, the weekly_sequence linkage, and the shape of a "full definition" go unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a gym-wide workflow") and scopes it to the gym. However, it advertises a choice between "templateKey (see list_workflow_templates) or a full definition", and no templateKey parameter exists in the schema — a template path is exposed by the sibling create_gym_workflow_from_template — so the stated purpose is muddied.

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?

Gives a genuine precondition ("needs the gym's workflow permission") and points at list_workflow_templates for discovery. But it never explains when to prefer this tool over the clearly related siblings create_gym_workflow_from_template, create_workflow, or create_weekly_message_series, and the template guidance points toward a flow this tool's schema cannot perform.

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

All Trainzilla Coach MCP 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.