get_todays_sessionToday's workout: exercises, sets/reps, per-exercise load guidance and concrete target weights, plus nutrition targets and cycle status. Auto-applies the user's readiness check-in (autoregulation) if they've done one today. Call this to see what the athlete should do now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dayIndex | No | Which program day (1-based). Defaults to the first day. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Auto-applies the user's readiness check-in (autoregulation) if they've done one today,' which tells the agent the returned workout may be adjusted based on readiness. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('Today's workout: exercises, sets/reps...'). It avoids redundant phrasing and every sentence contributes useful information. It is efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns: exercises, sets/reps, load guidance, target weights, nutrition targets, and cycle status. It also explains the auto-application of readiness. It does not cover edge cases like invalid dayIndex or error behavior, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete.
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?
The input schema covers the only parameter (dayIndex) with a description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 what the tool does: it returns today's workout details including exercises, sets/reps, load guidance, target weights, nutrition targets, and cycle status. The phrase 'Call this to see what the athlete should do now' gives a specific action and resource, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_program or nutrition_targets by focusing on the current daily session.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the athlete's current daily plan. It says 'Call this to see what the athlete should do now,' which establishes the primary use case. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing implies this is the go-to for today's session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: program retrieval, session guidance, workout logging, readiness check-in, exercise swaps, nutrition targets, and meal planning. Even the closely related list_swap_options and swap_exercise have clear separation (viewing alternatives vs. applying a change). No two tools could be reasonably confused.
Tool names are predominantly snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (get_program, list_swap_options, log_workout, regenerate_program, swap_exercise). However, a few are plain nouns (changelog, meal_plan, nutrition_targets) and readiness_checkin is a noun phrase, breaking the strict verb-first convention. This is a minor deviation that does not hinder readability.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a fitness coaching domain. Every tool addresses an essential aspect of the coaching loop: program viewing, daily session delivery, workout logging, readiness tracking, nutrition guidance, exercise modification, and explanation of changes. The count is within the ideal range and none feel redundant.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: get program, regenerate program, view today's session, log workout, check in readiness, swap exercises, and access nutrition targets and meal plans. Notable gaps include no explicit workout history/retrospective tool and no direct profile management, but these are likely handled externally or can be worked around. The inclusion of a changelog nicely closes the feedback loop.