meal_planA day of meals hitting the athlete's targets, USDA truth-checked (flags feasible=false with a note when macros are approximate). Slow (~15s AI call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exclusions | No | ||
| mealsPerDay | No | ||
| trainingDay | No | ||
| dietaryStyle | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: USDA truth-checking, feasible=false flag with notes for approximate macros, and a ~15s delay. This is substantial, though it does not mention side effects or required permissions.
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 purpose and adds critical behavior details (USDA check, feasibility flag, speed) without 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?
While the description covers overall output behavior, it omits parameter semantics, usage context, and return structure. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (exclusions, mealsPerDay, trainingDay, dietaryStyle). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 tool generates a day of meals hitting the athlete's targets, with unique details like USDA truth-checking and feasibility flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nutrition_targets and workout-related tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description focuses on behavior but does not contextualize selection among siblings.
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.