Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

executive-performance

by io.github.degenbmp-25
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Build Fuel Plan

fitness.build_fuel_plan
Read-only

Use this when a user wants a nutrition structure, wants to fix eating consistency, or asks how to eat for their goal. Returns protein targets per kg of bodyweight, three or four reliable meal anchors, freedom rules that keep it sustainable, and a recovery protocol for missed meals and bad weeks. Do NOT use for clinical nutrition, therapeutic diets, medication-related diet changes, disordered eating treatment, or allergy-driven plans — refer those to a registered dietitian or clinician. Do not use to calculate calorie targets for someone with an eating disorder history.

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": {
      "goal": "<goal>",
      "consistency": "<consistency>",
      "flexibilityIsTheConstraint": "<flexibilityIsTheConstraint>"
    },
    "name": "fitness.build_fuel_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesThe primary outcome the plan should support.
notesNoOptional context: dietary preferences, schedule, what has failed before.
consistencyYes0-10. How reliable is the user's eating right now? Low values produce a simplified plan; high values produce a plan that focuses on flexibility.
flexibilityIsTheConstraintYesTrue when the user's main problem is rigidity or social/travel disruption, rather than lack of knowledge. Changes the tone and the rules.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the output (protein targets, meal anchors, freedom rules, recovery protocol) even though no output schema exists. It does not discuss determinism or whether the plan is persisted, but nothing it says conflicts with the read-only annotation. The safety boundary around eating-disorder history reinforces the low-risk profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return payload, then exclusions, which is a sensible order. The final sentence ('Do not use to calculate calorie targets for someone with an eating disorder history') partially restates the earlier disordered-eating exclusion, a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four plan components. Required-parameter behavior, scope boundaries, and referral routing are all present, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so goal, consistency, flexibilityIsTheConstraint and notes are already fully documented, including how low consistency simplifies the plan and how flexibilityIsTheConstraint changes tone and rules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 artifact ('Build Fuel Plan') and immediately enumerates what the plan contains: protein targets per kg, three or four meal anchors, freedom rules, and a missed-meal recovery protocol. That is enough detail for an agent to distinguish it from the training/build siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit positive triggers ('wants a nutrition structure', 'fix eating consistency', 'asks how to eat for their goal') and explicit exclusions (clinical nutrition, therapeutic diets, medication-related changes, disordered eating treatment, allergy-driven plans) with a routing instruction to a dietitian or clinician. The alternatives are named by category and referral path, leaving little inference.

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

All executive-performance 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