Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Trainzilla Coach MCP

by io.github.Trainzilla
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

remove_checkin

Destructive

Delete a check-in. (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": {
      "checkInId": "<checkInId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_checkin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
checkInIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description adds genuine value by disclosing the confirm-gated preview-then-execute behavior. It still omits irreversibility and what the preview contains, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two short clauses, zero filler, with the destructive action front-loaded and the gating condition immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the execute/preview duality but leaves open what the preview returns and whether the deletion is reversible or cascades to related records. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: the confirm parameter is already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely echoes that contract. checkInId has no description in either place, though its name is self-explanatory.

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 ("Delete a check-in"), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_checkin_schedule or get_checkin. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description says nothing about when to choose this over get_checkin, list_checkins, or delete_checkin_schedule, nor about prerequisites such as ownership or permissions. The confirm-gating note is invocation mechanics, not usage guidance.

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