Fitness Tools
Server Details
Deterministic fitness calculators — TDEE, adaptive TDEE, body fat, 1RM, macros — with consensus.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- almostjacked/fitness-tools
- GitHub Stars
- 1
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
10 toolsactivity-multiplierActivity MultiplierRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate the TDEE activity multiplier via the classic lookup table or a NEAT+EAT model (occupation/steps for non-exercise, training volume for exercise).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bmr | No | ||
| weight | No | ||
| methods | No | all | |
| intensity | No | ||
| occupation | No | ||
| steps_per_day | No | ||
| activity_level | No | ||
| session_minutes | No | ||
| sessions_per_week | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| skipped | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
adaptive-tdeeAdaptive TDEERead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Measure actual TDEE from a logged history of daily weight and/or calorie intake. Default method (kalman) is a joint Kalman filter over true weight and TDEE — handles missing days, gates outliers, and reports uncertainty (CI95) alongside denoised true weight; regression/endpoints are simple window-based estimates kept for comparison. Use instead of formula TDEE once real logged data exists. Each entry needs at least one of weight/kcal (not necessarily both). Entry dates must span 10 years or less (earliest to latest). Note: all methods need at least one weigh-in (kalman) or two (regression/endpoints) — a history with zero weight entries throws under the kalman default; pass methods:'all' to get a graceful empty/skipped result instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | Yes | ||
| methods | No | kalman | |
| window_days | No | ||
| prior_tdee_kcal | No | Optional starting TDEE estimate, e.g. from the tdee tool; speeds early convergence. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| skipped | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
body-fatBody Fat PercentageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate body-fat % via US Navy circumference, Jackson-Pollock 3-site skinfold, and Deurenberg (BMI-based) methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | ||
| hip | No | ||
| sex | Yes | ||
| neck | No | ||
| waist | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| weight | No | ||
| methods | No | all | |
| skinfold_sum | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| skipped | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reveals key behavioral detail (the three estimation methods) beyond annotations' readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It clarifies the tool is a calculator, not a destructive operation.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and methods, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the tool's core function.
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?
Tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but description lacks parameter descriptions and return value explanation. However, purpose and method options are clear, making it minimally viable.
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 coverage is 0% with 9 parameters, but description gives no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., which measurements are needed for each method). The mention of methods is only marginally helpful.
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?
Description states specific verb 'estimate', resource 'body-fat %', and names three distinct methods (US Navy circumference, Jackson-Pollock 3-site skinfold, Deurenberg BMI-based), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like tdee or macros.
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?
Description implies usage for body fat estimation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or how to choose among the three methods. Prerequisites and context are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ffmiFat-Free Mass IndexBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compute the Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI) and its height-adjusted form from weight and body fat (or lean mass), and flag whether it exceeds the ~25 natural ceiling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| height | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all | |
| body_fat | No | ||
| lean_mass | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool flags whether FFMI exceeds the natural ceiling (~25), which provides value beyond 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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without any waste.
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?
Despite having 5 parameters with nested objects and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context about input formats or interpretation of the output, relying too heavily on the unshown output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only vaguely mentions inputs ('weight and body fat (or lean mass)') without explaining unit structures, the 'methods' parameter, or the nested object formats.
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 verb 'Compute' and the specific resource 'Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI) and its height-adjusted form', distinguishing it from sibling tools like body-fat or muscle-potential.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as body-fat or muscle-potential. The description is purely functional without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
macrosMacronutrient SplitARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compute protein/fat/carb grams for a calorie target using the g-per-kg-bodyweight method, with goal-based protein defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | maintain | |
| weight | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all | |
| calories | Yes | ||
| fat_g_per_kg | No | ||
| protein_g_per_kg | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific method (g-per-kg-bodyweight) and goal-based defaults, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and method. Every part is informative and no unnecessary words.
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?
With 6 parameters including nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the main use case but omits the 'methods' parameter and optional overrides. Without explanation of these, the agent may not leverage full functionality. Output schema compensates for return values.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'calories' and 'weight' as inputs and 'goal' for defaults, but does not mention 'methods', 'fat_g_per_kg', or 'protein_g_per_kg'. These are not self-explanatory from the schema alone, creating a gap.
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 it computes protein/fat/carb grams based on calorie target and bodyweight using a specific method. This differentiates it from sibling tools like tdee or adaptive-tdee, which estimate energy needs.
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 use when a calorie target and weight are known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for macro breakdown vs. total energy estimation). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
muscle-potentialMaximum Muscular PotentialRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate drug-free maximum bodyweight at a target body-fat % via Casey Butt (wrist+ankle), the FFMI~25 natural cap, and Berkhan's max-contest-weight model. Men only in v1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | Yes | ||
| ankle | No | ||
| wrist | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all | |
| target_body_fat_pct | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| skipped | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
one-rep-maxOne-Rep MaxRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate 1RM from a submaximal set via Epley, Brzycki, Lombardi, Wathan, O'Conner, and Mayhew; returns a %1RM load chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reps | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes | |
| percent_table | Yes |
powerlifting-attemptsPowerlifting Meet AttemptsRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Deterministic opener/second/third attempts from an estimated 1RM, plus a warmup ramp and per-side plate loading. Tunable by aggressiveness and available plates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bar_weight | No | ||
| one_rep_max | Yes | ||
| aggressiveness | No | standard | |
| available_plates | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| unit | Yes | |
| warmups | Yes | |
| attempts | Yes | |
| bar_weight | Yes | |
| aggressiveness | Yes |
rsmiRelative Skeletal Muscle IndexRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate the appendicular skeletal muscle index (RSMI) from a DXA value (direct) and/or an anthropometric estimate (Wen 2011), and flag low muscle mass against EWGSOP2, AWGS, and Baumgartner sarcopenia cutoffs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | Yes | ||
| sex | Yes | ||
| asm_kg | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| skipped | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
tdeeTotal Daily Energy ExpenditureRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate BMR and TDEE via Mifflin-St Jeor, Harris-Benedict, Katch-McArdle, and Cunningham. Provide body_fat or lean_mass to unlock the LBM-based methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | Yes | ||
| sex | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| methods | No | all | |
| activity | Yes | ||
| body_fat | No | ||
| lean_mass | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| skipped | Yes | |
| consensus | Yes |
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!