Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Trainzilla Coach MCP

by io.github.Trainzilla
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

import_checkin_history

Load a client's PAST check-ins with the answers they gave (batch, confirm-gated). Each row becomes a check-in on its past date (created already accepted; the client gets no notification) with the answers saved on it as the coach's entry, dated to that day. Days that already have a check-in for this client are skipped, so re-running is safe. Rows run one at a time; a failed row is reported and the rest continue. Answer keys must match a question label from the same row. Up to 50 rows per call.

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "checkins": "<checkins>"
    },
    "name": "import_checkin_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
checkinsYes
clientIdYesClient's User _id (from list_clients)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false supplied, the description carries the burden and does it well: rows are created already accepted, the client gets no notification, existing days are skipped so re-running is idempotent, rows run one at a time with per-row failure isolation, and answer keys must match a label in the same row. These are exactly the mutation side effects an agent needs to know before calling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the core action, then layers idempotency, failure handling, and validation constraints in short declarative sentences. No filler; every sentence supplies information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Covers the critical behaviors for a batch mutation — idempotency, partial failure, notification suppression, and validation — despite having no annotations beyond readOnlyHint=false and no output schema. What is missing is a description of the preview/result payload shape and error reporting granularity, which would help an agent interpret the response.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express: answer keys must match a question label from the same row. It also reinforces the 50-row cap already in maxItems, but adds no detail on clientId sourcing or confirm preview behavior beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — loading a client's PAST check-ins with their answers — in a batch, confirm-gated form. This clearly separates it from create_checkin, add_checkin_log, and respond_to_checkin, which are single/current check-in operations.

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?

Emphasizes 'PAST' and 'import' to signal the backfill scenario, and notes confirm-gating and the 50-row cap. It never explicitly names a sibling alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g., for a new same-day check-in), so it falls short of a 5.

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 toolsInspect
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