Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

executive-performance

by io.github.degenbmp-25
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit Coaching Interest

fitness.submit_coaching_interest

Use this ONLY when a user explicitly asks to be contacted about one-to-one coaching, or explicitly asks to apply for coaching. Collects name, email, goal, and an optional note, then creates a lead for the coach. Do NOT use proactively, do NOT use to upsell, and do NOT use it as a lead-capture step at the end of a free interaction — only on an explicit request from the user. There is no in-plugin purchase: coaching is sold and scheduled separately, so this tool only records interest.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "goal": "<goal>",
      "consentGranted": "<consentGranted>"
    },
    "name": "fitness.submit_coaching_interest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesThe primary outcome they want coaching for.
nameYesThe user's name.
noteNoOptional message. Do not include medical history, medications, diagnoses, government identifiers, or payment details — those are rejected and not stored.
emailYesThe user's email address, for the coach to reply to.
consentGrantedYesMust be true. Confirms the user agreed to be contacted about coaching.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it creates a lead for the coach, does not perform an in-plugin purchase, and only records interest. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or response details, but the annotations lower the burden for a mutation of this kind.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core eligibility condition and then explains the data collected and the follow-on process. The repeated negative guidance is purposeful given the high-risk upsell scenario, and every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and usage. There is no filler.

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?

For a lead-capture mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection constraints, collected data, and downstream handling. It also clearly explains that the tool does not complete a coaching purchase, preventing an agent from overpromising. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 the input schema already documents name, email, goal, optional note, and the required consent flag. The description adds a brief summary of the collected fields and notes that the note is optional, but it does not add syntax, format, or consent-specific semantics beyond the schema. The baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it records a user's explicit coaching interest, collects contact and goal details, and creates a lead for the coach. It also clarifies that coaching is sold and scheduled separately, so the tool only captures interest rather than performing a purchase. This distinguishes the tool from the other fitness-planning and progress siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user explicitly asks to be contacted about one-to-one coaching or asks to apply for coaching. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: not proactively, not for upselling, and not as an end-of-interaction lead-capture step. This is unusually clear routing guidance.

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